Ultimate Proof That Google Fiber Is Not Serious

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Ancho...les-135868
If Google was serious, they could have rolled out Google Fiber to all of their current cities by now.

Alaska's GCI (see our user reviews) says the ISP has completed deployment of its ultra-fast "Red" gigabit broadband service to Anchorage. The company started its deployment of gigabit services in September and completed it at the end of November. The 1 Gbps downstream, 50 Mbps upstream service costs $175 a month, but according to the company's FAQ, GCI's Red gigabit service comes with a 750 GB usage cap.

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Towns...low-135888
How much longer will it be before people realize that Google Fiber's promises are just as hollow?

[SteelCrysis]

Nope, it has to do with the fiber-to-the-press-release that Google Fiber pioneered and never gets slammed for, whereas the other ISPs get slammed for doing the exact same thing on a smaller scale: announce fiber deployment to a city, actually deploy to close to none of it. If they were serious, they could roll out to an entire city in a matter of months.

[SteelCrysis]

My OP shows that GCI was able to deploy to the 300,000 people (http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/table...l?src=bkmk) of Anchorage, Alaska, in just a few months. Yet Google Fiber can manage only 1/3 of that in 3 years in Kansas City. That's pathetic.

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Repor...018-136099
They also cite their previous article about how some anal-yst is fantasizing about Google Fiber, which was such a joke that I didn't even bother posting it here. Anyway, they're not going to reach 2.4 million homes by the end of 2017. I predict they won't have reached 1 million by that time.

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Googl...ion-136263
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comca...nta-136268
Despite Comcast being dubious on details, they get it absolutely right when they say "Don't fall for the hype," considering that Google Fiber is spreading like continental drift. Then there's this new price tier. It proves that Google Fiber has realized that it has generated enough hype for nearly everyone to think they can do no wrong, and that they can start relatively shortchanging people on bandwidth/$. From 1 Gbps at 70$ per month to 100 Mbps at 50$ per month. This had better not become a trend.

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Googl...-Of-136366
Now I'm worried. They're pulling an AT&T Uverse-style minuscule deployment using existing fiber lines.

Google Fiber has announced it's starting to offer Google Fiber to select apartment buildings in San Francisco, using existing fiber. According to a Google Fiber blog post, San Francisco will be the 22nd metro area Google plans to offer some flavor service. To be clear Google Fiber's announcement makes no mention of a broader San Francisco build, only stating "some apartments, condos, and affordable housing properties" will be offered symmetrical gigabit service using existing fiber already deployed in the city.

[SteelCrysis]

The problem is that it's a virtual repeat of the fiber-to-the-press-release fiber releases by their competition. Their competition got slammed for doing virtually the same thing Google Fiber is doing in San Francisco, and it was always held up that Google Fiber deployed to cities. That precedent just got compromised.

[SteelCrysis]

Sure they did. They implied it by their statements that they were rolling out to cities. The fact that they got closer to this than the competition is what set them apart from the competition. That's been compromised now.

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Googl...sco-136376
Meanwhile, an ISP other than the holy Google Fiber deploys 1 Gbps fiber at $40 a month to 2 whole districts. No ticker tape parade, just Google Fiber lapdogs whining in the comments.

[BoFox]

Not just SteelCrysis, but the author of this:

Yesterday Google Fiber stole headlines with its announcement that it would be offering gigabit broadband to a few apartment buildings in San Francisco...some day. While the announcement was extremely light on details regarding price, full scope, and availability (read: virtually none), it overshadowed the launch of a significantly larger and cheaper San Francisco gigabit fiber deployment by independent ISP Sonic, one of the only viable survivors of the CLEC/ILEC wars of years past.

SteelCrysis does have a valid point here.  Google is already the most valuable company in the world, having just beaten Apple, but Google is pathetic with rolling out Fiber. 

I guess it's a good thing since Google is just too powerful of a company now.  These corporate giants (Microsoft, Apple, Samsung, etc.) are blown up into super-giants these days, and anti-monopoly laws are no longer working against them.

[SteelCrysis]

What is it? AT&T's lawsuit? It isn't interesting to me. It's hard to get excited over yet another lawsuit.

[SteelCrysis]

What is it? I get my Google Fiber news from DSL Reports, and they haven't talked about whatever it is you're talking about. Or if they have, I've overlooked it.

[SteelCrysis]

Oh. I don't care to the point that I didn't notice it. It's Oregon's fault, not Google Fiber.

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ISPs-...nia-136481
It's a shame. What's nearly as bad is that Google Fiber wouldn't roll out much faster than not rolling out at all if the blocking didn't exist.

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...-broadband

“There’s a lot more bark than bite” behind Google’s strategy, said Roger Entner, an analyst with Recon Analytics LLC.
...
“Any time Google is doing three, AT&T is doing 30 cities,” Entner said.
...
Consumers often stick with the incumbents, even if they get speeds slower than 1 gigabit. Many customers in Provo, Utah, where Google Fiber was rolled out in 2014, have managed to wrangle lower rates by calling their existing providers and threatening to switch, said Wayne Parker, chief administrative officer for the city.
...
She declined to comment on whether Alphabet would consider buying an existing telecom or cable company to speed up the Fiber rollout. While the company doesn’t release subscriber numbers, Google Fiber is expanding into seven more cities, although it declined to provide a timeline.

So far, analysts say Google isn’t making a dent in the incumbents’ results.

“Nowhere in this discussion of cable subscribers has Google even been relevant,” said Paul Sweeney, director of North American research at Bloomberg Intelligence.

Internet provider CenturyLink Inc.’s chief marketing officer, Bill Hurley, said in a statement that Google Fiber “had no impact” on the company’s decision to offer 1 gigabit service in portions of 19 states. The competition would help bring high-speed Internet access to underserved areas, he said. Google and other companies have been criticized for focusing on wealthy neighborhoods.
...
The incumbents are benefiting from Google’s entry as cities relax their requirements for buildouts, and strive to reduce permitting and other costs.

“Growing customer demand, advancing technologies and pro-investment municipal policies that lower construction costs have accelerated our recent network deployments,” AT&T said last week in a statement.

In Austin, Texas, for instance, Google has been allowed to experiment with micro-trenching -- digging shallower pits for the fiber than are typically used.

“The activation is much faster and less expensive,” said Rondella Hawkins, officer of telecommunications and regulatory affairs for the Texas capital.

Meanwhile, Atlanta is talking with Google and other providers about splitting the costs of opening up roads in places with existing municipal fiber, which the city wants to upgrade, said Kristin Wilson, Atlanta’s deputy chief operating officer.

With three major providers fighting it out, “we are thrilled,” she said. “We want options and competition for our citizens.”

Of course, DSLReport's response is to spin, spin, spin! http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Googl...ice-136827

[SteelCrysis]

And the precedent of Google Fiber being deployed to cites rather than apartment blocks just got even more compromised: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Googl...lle-136850

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Googl...ets-136937
Spin, spin, spin! Google Fiber expands at the rate of continental drift? Spin, spin, spin, and forget all about GCI's 3 month deployment to all of Anchorage, which they reported on! Also, I love Karl Bode's Freudian slip when he says "While Google Fiber is still derided on some fronts as all hype, the impact the service has had on competition (both real competition and conversations about it) can't be under-stated." Of course, the so-called "impact" has almost nothing to do with Google Fiber and almost everything to do with DOCSIS 3.1 upgrades.

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/If-Bo...low-137130

Last month Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam told investors that Boston Mayor Marty Walsh's administration was "more willing to help us get rights of way, help us push fiber into the neighborhoods, and do more pre-subscription a la the Google model." That's effectively code for the fact that Google Fiber has made it cool to cherry pick certain neighborhoods, unlike the "olden days" where franchise agreements required a company service an entire city (again, not that Verizon actually did that).

Like Google Fiber's "fiberhood" initiative, Verizon is only the latest ISP to copy the idea in which the first neighborhoods to get fiber will be the ones that show the most interest. Granted nobody really audits to determine how this interest is calculated or if the end tallies are real, though it does help ISPs give the impression that selective deployment of a necessary utility is a democratic process. Critics have frequently highlighted how such a system only amplifies the digital divide, as poorer communities by nature often have greater struggles to deal with than begging for next-generation broadband.

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Googl...TOS-137223
And Google Fiber continues its descent into scumbag behavior.

[BoFox]

Corporations slowly but surely attacking civilizations!!!  

Soon, Google will be the next China, and Microsoft will be the next Soviet Union - both fighting to take as much of our own property as possible!


Simple solution for America:::::::

We the People appeal to the Supreme Court (metaphorically like a class-action lawsuit against ALL the companies), to make it ILLEGAL for companies to ever block class-action lawsuits again.  

If this is not ever possible, then companies are on the constant rise set to become as powerful as governments of many countries in Europe, all fighting for our personal stashes.

[SteelCrysis]

Good ideas, BoFox.

Edit: According to one of the comments, you can still sue Google Fiber in small claims court.

[SteelCrysis]

https://consumerist.com/2016/06/16/googl...ht-to-sue/

When reached for comment on this story, Google refused to explain its rationale behind this change to its user agreement.

However, a close look at the confusing terms of service show that users can opt out, but they must do so quickly.

According to the terms, the new agreement kicks in within 30 days of accepting the new language. Customers can, however, during that time period use this online form (you must be logged in to your Fiber account to access it) to opt out of this change and future changes to the arbitration agreement.

Given that the terms were changed on June 9 and it’s already June 16, that’s a significant chunk of time that’s already been taken away from the opt-out window, so if you want to retain your right to a jury trial if Google Fiber ever screws you over, fill that form out now.

[SteelCrysis]

In contrast to Google Fiber: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Sudde...int-137381

The company has been quick to take a few shots at Google and AT&T for not having more uniform gigabit deployments.
"In sharp contrast to companies like Google and AT&T, which are offering a Gigabit service only to a few neighborhoods in primarily urban markets, we're making our service available in all of the neighborhoods and households passed by our network throughout the Greenville area." said Suddenlink of its gigabit initiative.

[SickBeast]

Shockingly the local cable provider in my area now offers gigabit internet and I got a crazy promotion for 500mbps service. I have to say it's really wonderful. I can download large steam games in a few minutes.

[SteelCrysis]

Shockingly the local cable provider in my area now offers gigabit internet and I got a crazy promotion for 500mbps service. I have to say it's really wonderful. I can download large steam games in a few minutes.

Congrats, dude!

[SickBeast]

Thanks!

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Repor...int-137750
https://www.theinformation.com/inside-th...ogle-fiber
They expected ~5 million on Google Fiber in 5 years? You'd think that if they were serious, they could have achieved that with Google's countless billions backing them

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Googl...les-138049
Just in case anyone thought Google wasn't just another ISP.

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Googl...ses-138194

Google Fiber has announced that the company will be laying off an unspecified number of employees and pausing the deployment of ultra-fast broadband in several of the company's "potential" markets. According to a blog post by Access CEO Craig Barrett, Barrett will be stepping down from his role as Access CEO effective immediately, his replacement as-yet unnamed. Barrett also confirmed that Google Fiber will be pausing or ceasing fiber deployment in ten cities the company had previously claimed were "potential" markets.

The announcement comes after an August report claimed that executives at Google weren't happy with initial uptake numbers, and were considering a shift toward using wireless as a supplemental deployment option.

Barrett was quick to make it clear that service will continue in the company's existing markets (Atlanta, Austin, Charlotte, Kansas City, Nashville, Provo, Salt Lake City, and The Triangle in North Carolina). The company also says it remains dedicated to promised deployment plans in Huntsville, Alabama; San Antonio, Texas; Louisville, Kentucky; and Irvine, California.

But the company will be pausing or ending potential but not-yet formalized deployments in Portland, Chicago, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, San Diego, San Jose, and Tampa. Most of these cities had yet to see any notable work, and most were still in the early stages of conversation with Google Fiber.

That said, Barrett makes it clear that Google Fiber isn't folding up shop, but "refining" the company's existing business model.

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Portl...use-138214

Earlier this week Google Fiber announced that the company would be "pausing" its deployment to a number of "potential" Google Fiber markets as it considers a pivot to wireless. While Google will continue to expand existing deployments and work on many of its just-started fiber launches, more than half a dozen cities that were in various stages of talks with Google on an eventual launch will be out of luck, and any existing Google Fiber employees in those cities laid off.

As it stands, those cities include Portland, Chicago, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, San Diego, San Jose, and Tampa.

Of those, Portland likely is the most annoyed by Google Fiber's sudden about face, given it had been jumping through hoops for several years to try and bring the ultra-fast service to the city.

At Google's behest, Portland in 2014 reconfigured a city ordinance that banned the placing of fiber cabinets in city rights of way. The state meanwhile, after a few misfires, crafted a law designed to provide Google Fiber with several tax breaks for deploying gigabit service.

Utility pole attachment deals had already been struck with Portland General Electric and Pacific Power, and the city had been working hard for several years at laying the groundwork for the Google Fiber "huts" needed around the city to power the service.

That's not to say some variant of Google-branded broadband won't someday arrive in Portland, but it's likely that this service won't be fiber, and much of the existing work will have been wasted. Google has filed applications with the FCC to conduct trials in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz millimeter wave bands, and is also conducting a variety of different tests in the 3.5 GHz band, the 5.8 GHz band and the 24 GHz band, and hopes to offer speeds up to a gig...eventually.

Until then, Portland's left standing at the broadband competition altar after Google Fiber executives got cold feet about continued expansion of the company's fiber optic network.

[SteelCrysis]

And the DSLReports article didn't mention that Google's internet division CEO has stepped down: http://www.businessinsider.com/google-fi...es-2016-10

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Googl...uts-138226

Google Fiber's decision to pivot to wireless and eliminate a small number of employees have stoked fears that Google has gotten cold feet about its massive bet on broadband. But the company continues to insist that the pause in deployment to the company's list of future "potential" Google Fiber launch markets like Portland are because the company is bullish on next-generation wireless broadband -- not because it's having second thoughts about challenging the entrenched incumbent broadband (mono)duopoly.

Speaking on the company's earnings call, Alphabet CFO Ruth Porat made it clear that these eight "paused" cities (Portland, Chicago, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Diego, San Jose, and Tampa) may not be paused for long.

"We’re making great progress in those cities and we remain committed to growth in those cities," Porat said on the Google/Alphabet earnings call. "We’re pausing for now our work in eight cities where we’ve been in exploratory discussions. But very much to your question, it’s to better integrate some of the technology work we’ve been developing."

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Googl...tor-138508

Bloomberg offers up a few more details in a report on the ongoing shift at Google, noting that Alphabet CFO Ruth Porat is attempting to bring some fiscal "focus" to the Silicon Valley giant. The report indicates that while Google co-founder Sergey Brin was apparently still bullish on disrupting the telecom industry, Larry Page was supposedly "frustrated" by Google Fiber's lack of progress:
...
According to Bloomberg, many at Google are frustrated by Page's impatience, and say he's bowing to investors and shifting Google into just another company eager to cut corners at every opportunity:

These changes have prompted many in Silicon Valley to accuse Page of bowing to investor pressure—in other words, of acting like a CEO of a normal, publicly traded company. “It definitely looks like a more conventional company,” says Randy Komisar, a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. “It’s the classic GE conglomerate model,” he says, comparing Page to Jack Welch, famous for turning General Electric around by shedding research divisions and slashing costs.

...
That said, Page's apparent disdain for disrupting the broadband sector because it's hard and takes time should give any Google Fiber supporter pause. It's not outside of the realm of possibility that Google gets tired of meddling in the telecom space entirely and sells off the entire project at some point, especially with an incoming administration that appears to be putting regulatory oversight of nation's entrenched duopolies on the far back burner.
Readers place your bets: does Google Fiber go on to great things, or does it get sold off and become another sad footnote in the never-ending quest to bring meaningful competition to the US broadband market?

[SteelCrysis]

http://gizmodo.com/what-happened-to-goog...1792440779
A puff piece that seeks to scapegoat Google Fiber's continental drift-slow rollout on obstruction and costs, and ignores the following facts:

1. Google Fiber is nothing but a good PR machine for Google, and therefore
   
2. there's no interest in rolling out fiber faster than continental drift, and
   
3. no interest in weeding out their massive inefficiencies.
   

But it also has this:

But that leaves the question: why is this shift happening now? A former Google Fiber employee told Gizmodo that he was surprised by what’s happening and that the company perhaps shouldn’t have been so thrown by incumbent providers like AT&T’s attempts to slow them down, saying these providers “always tried to block the process, which is why Google had spread itself out across a small number of metro areas. These are not new issues.”

Ultimately, for all the Silicon Valley talk of values and the benefits of expanding high-speed broadband, it’s likely that Google’s reasoning lies at least partly in a calculation about profitability. Fiber was always one of Google’s “other bets,” which are just that—bets, not guaranteed to pay off. Google is happy to keep sending its Project Loon internet balloons into the sky, announcing a breakthrough in deployment today, but it’s suddenly less committed to laying more cables in the ground. Was the focus on deploying this infrastructure just no longer worth the hassle and cost of fighting these protracted battles with incumbent internet providers? With the company seemingly seeking to get more serious about some of its “pie-in-the-sky” bets, maybe those big investments in laying the cables just didn’t seem worth it when the wireless alternative is right there.

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Orego...how-139095
More money went to Comcast, all thanks to Google Fiber not being serious. Yes, I have changed my mind from previously in this thread, because the situation did not make itself. Yet Google Fiber fanbois are still falsely blaming the other ISPs for obstructing and engaging in wild speculation. Reality shows that Google Fiber did not experience one peep of opposition until it came to Louisville. When Google Fiber didn't experience any opposition, it still rolled out at the speed of continental drift.

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Susan...ons-139159
https://backchannel.com/google-fiber-was....8io858nhs
Another puff piece.

The initial 2010 competition awakened cities across the country, unleashing a demand for fiber—and for change and choice—that has only grown since then.

Wrong. What Google Fiber mostly did do was pioneer fiber-to-the-press-release, which other ISPs copied on a smaller scale. There's been some growth in fiber, but far too little to be celebrated.

The company discovered how important it is to be on the ground, working with cities to simplify and rationalize creaky permitting structures and obsolete, status quo-protecting rules about wonky things like poles and conduit. Google Fiber’s 2014 city-readiness checklist provides guidance that’s broadly applicable to any fiber installation.

None of which other ISPs have seemed to need.

Where Google threatened to go, incumbent cable guys suddenly found it in their power to lower their prices. This showed that competition matters and the margins enjoyed by the existing monopolies are huge.

And Google Fiber's lack of seriousness seriously limited the size of the impact.

The company inadvertently made plain the problem of treating internet access like any other demand-prompted product, when its Kansas City installations failed to cross into historically redlined parts of the city. A utility serving everyone fairly doesn’t ask for payment and interest up front.

Committing a problem is a strange way to highlight it.

On the most basic level, lighting up Kansas City sparked imaginations around the country and made other mayors jealous.

And then started screwing its Kansas City customers who were waiting significant times to get Google Fiber. How?

Here's how: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Googl...ity-139175
Waiting up to 18 months only to have Google Fiber cancel your order on you is despicable.

Waiting potential Google Fiber customers in Kansas City say their orders are being cancelled without much of an explanation from the company. Local news outlet KSHB in Kansas City spoke to a large number of customers on Google Fiber's waiting list in the city that received an e-mail stating their order had been cancelled. Many of these customers have been waiting since late 2015 -- as much as eighteen months -- for service, but the e-mail fails to really explain why they won't be getting it.
...
When reached for comment, Google Fiber wouldn't really provide an explanation for the cancellations, but continues to insist they're dedicated to the city, and the build there

"Google Fiber loves Kansas City and is here to stay," the company says. "We’ve been grateful to be part of your community since 2011, and for the opportunity to provide superfast Internet to residents. We recently announced our expansion into Raymore, we are continuing to build in Overland Park, and we can’t wait for even more customers in Kansas City to experience what’s possible with Google Fiber."

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Frust...ers-139281

You can add Salt Lake City residents to the growing list of would-be customers frustrated by the slow pace of Google Fiber's deployment. Locals in the city are frustrated by the sparse availability of the service more than two years after the project was first announced. The Deseret News notes that the company refuses to provide specific information on how many Salt Lake residents have service, in what order Salt Lake neighborhoods will be receiving service, or how long it will take to complete the work of establishing access to Google Fiber service citywide.

Frustration has mounted not only because of Google Fiber's slow pace, but because the company hasn't been particularly clear about the direction of the project after last fall's shock announcement.

Last fall Google Fiber announced it would be putting a number of new fiber deployments on hold as executives -- rumored to be tired of the high cost and slow pace of fiber installs -- ponder a pivot to next-generation, ultra-fast wireless. While this shake up involved laying off the CEO and shuffling around some employees, the company has continued to insist that existing deployments -- like Salt Lake City and Kansas City -- would remain unaffected.

But in Kansas City many customers have seen their installations cancelled in recent months. And in markets like Charlotte and Salt Lake City, many people just aren't sure if service will ever actually reach them. While some of this is due to the traditionally-slow pace of digging and installing fiber, in many of these markets there are clear signs that work has been intentionally slowed as Google ponders its wireless pivot.

But Google Fiber has refused to acknowledge this, only fueling consumer annoyance. For its part, Google Fiber's response has been to issue a series of rosy press statements that profess continued dedication to the project, but don't really provide any meaningful answers.
...
The reticence of Google Fiber to provide more detail likely stems from the fact that Alphabet/Google executives aren't sure themselves what happens next. The company is conducting a large number of trials using a wide variety of technologies and spectrum, and pretty clearly wants to better understand what these wireless options can do -- before insisting them a lateral replacement for the traditional fiber many execs clearly are drifting away from.

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Yet-M...ber-139324
The rest of the article that I don't quote is more excuse making and comments. And actually, those people in Kansas who were waiting have been waiting up to 18 months, not years.

Google continues to shuffle around executives after announcing last fall that it was laying off its CEO, pausing some of its fiber expansions, and pondering a potential shift from fiber to wireless. According to Bloomberg, Milo Medin, a vice president at Access (already downgraded from CEO), and Dennis Kish, a wireless infrastructure veteran and president of Google Fiber, are leaving the division -- but staying at Alphabet/Google. Bloomberg cites anonymous inside sources that say the moves are part of more than 600 employees that have been moved away from Google Fiber.

It's just the latest in a series of moves that have customers and analysts alike increasingly questioning Google's dedication to disrupting the telecom sector.

Google Fiber continues to pretend that everything is fine -- despite obvious, repeated indications that this clearly isn't the case. Even in markets like Kansas City that Google Fiber last fall claimed wouldn't be impacted by the cuts and pivot, many users that have waited for years for installation have said their installs have been cancelled. Google Fiber has simply refused to provide a real explanation why.

[SteelCrysis]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Chart...les-139382
Charter has a really good point. From the source that DSLReports links to:

To some extent, Google Fiber had it coming. It took small deposits from customers who waited for years — often passing up discounts from the competition in the meantime — and then told them this spring that it wouldn’t hook them up to its speedy fiber-optic lines any time soon.

Those customers (“too bad they couldn’t keep up with their end of the bargain,” one said this week on a Google forum) got a raw deal.

But Spectrum only sped up its service after Google Fiber came to town. Ditto AT&T, Comcast and Consolidated Communications. They all insist it was customer demand, not Google, that prodded them. Whatever.