|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Council members expressed concern Tuesday about some unusual requests from Google as it proposes the logistics for building its high-speed Google fiber network in Mountain View.
The city’s largest employer is proposing a relatively inexpensive and fast Internet service for Mountain View residents which is already being rolled out in Kansas City and Provo, Utah. While it sounds like a nice idea, council members weren’t so pleased with a number of requests Google has made for the network as its proposal was laid out by city staff Tuesday, including a rigid timeline, a potentially unfair process for determining where to build the network, numerous “box” structures around town, and a request to submit “plans with less detail than normally required” for such a project, such as “no site specific traffic-control plans.”
“This is a ‘take it or leave it’ approach, rather than saying, ‘Let’s work together, tell us what your concerns are,’ and come up with a mutually acceptable solution,” said council member Jac Siegel said of Google. “I don’t like their modus operandi at all.”
After wrestling with the possible consequences, the council voted 6-0 with Margaret Abe-Koga absent to move ahead with the project, and have city staff respond to a 17-page checklist Google wants by May 1. With 33 other cities doing the same thing, Google may or may not decide to build the network, negotiations for which were part of an announcement that Google would turn off most of its free WiFi system in Mountain View, leaving only an improved downtown setup.
“If the City Council decided to pass on fiber in MV, there would be hell to pay with residents,” said council member Mike Kasperzak, who blamed the city’s dismal Internet service on a lack of competition. AT&T happened to announce this week that it would roll out a similar service in Mountain View soon, among other places.
Google Fiber could bring residents a speed similar to what most enjoy now (5 megabyte a second) for no monthly fee (Comcast now charges anywhere from $30 a month to more than $70 for that) but there would be a one-time $300 construction fee. Ultra-fast Internet (1 gigabyte per second) would cost $70 a month or $120 a month if it includes TV services. One resident complained at the meeting about suffering from Comcast’s “terribly slow Internet” for seven years.
It was also revealed that if Google follows practices in Provo or Kansas City, Mountain View would be divided into “fiber-hoods” of 200 to 250 residents, said Mayor Chris Clark. The fiber-hoods that have residents that speak up in public meetings (in Mountain View, that has traditionally been neighborhoods of homeowners) will get access to the new Internet service first, Clark said.
It was unclear whether that would mean whole apartment complexes, homes and streets could go without Google fiber if property owners didn’t act in time. City Manager Dan Rich said he believed apartment complexes would see an “all or nothing” situation but Clark disagreed, saying the service would be run to every complex and that residents could then choose to use it, like cable access now. A Google representative wasn’t there to answer which scenario was correct.
“The fact that Google isn’t here tonight makes me wonder if this is worthwhile pursuing,” said council member John Inks.
It is expected that Google will install up to three “network huts” around town to distribute the “network ring” that will run around the city. Each of the windowless, 1,400-square-foot huts would go on yet-to -be selected piece of public land, which Google would lease (Google wants the lease agreements in advance, though no sites have been selected). There would also be about 100 smaller network boxes placed along the city’s streets, which are silent, require no electricity and could be painted different colors. Google would also run most of the network on overhead wires, except on streets where utilities are underground, said public works director Mike Fuller.
“I always have concern about big boxes and endless wires hanging from our poles,” said council member Ronit Bryant.
Google has said “this is ideal,” Jensen said of their entire proposal, but “if there is something we can’t meet or is unreasonable to let them know. It hasn’t been an all-or-nothing process.”
Council candidate Jim Neal said “I can’t believe the city is (considering Google’s proposal) for one second. In Provo (Google) cut down trees and ruptured a gas line. We are going to have stumps allover Mountain View if they get their way.”
The project may be subject to California’s environmental law, CEQA, which could delay the project if an environmental impact report is required.
network speeds are described in bits not bytes!
Google has developed a history of failing everywhere it gets involved. We in Mountain View are a prime example with the disastrous WiFi access that Google promised but in reality has never delivered. I’m concerned that Google will use this opportunity to either fail again or to surreptitiously monitor Mountain View residents’ online habits, as they have been found guilty of doing to the public in general, by a European court. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Google-Faces-British-Court-Over-Tracking-Safari-Users-Browsing-Habits-409455.shtml
I would like to see full, total and complete disclosure by Google, along with a written promise to perform, along with metrics and penalties of they do not perform or maintain as the residents of Mountain View expect, over the next 25 years. I’d also like to see written contracts that provide for speed increases (because Internet demands are constantly growing) along with Net Neutrality for all Mountain View residents to have full speed access to all Internet places and services, regardless of who is providing the service and/or what that place is
I’m not a Google employee or stock holder. I say, let’s approve Google request.
Bob must work for Comcast……
I currently pay approx $65 a month for Comcast “high speed” internet, which runs at 20 mbps (download) and 11 mpbs (upload). Just checked, using http://www.speedtest.net
Google is proposing 1,000 mbps. for the same price.
I have already told Google that I am interested.
You can too, at: https://fiber.google.com/about/
This comment made me laught out loud:
“This is a ‘take it or leave it’ approach, rather than saying, ‘Let’s work together, tell us what your concerns are,’ and come up with a mutually acceptable solution,” said council member Jac Siegel said of Google. “I don’t like their modus operandi at all.”
If they want to experience a “take it or leave it” approach, council members can try to get a problem resolved through staff, planning commission and council.
Bob said: “I would like to see full, total and complete disclosure by Google, along with a written promise to perform, along with metrics and penalties of they do not perform or maintain as the residents of Mountain View expect, over the next 25 years. I’d also like to see written contracts that provide for speed increases (because Internet demands are constantly growing) along with Net Neutrality […]”
Good luck getting that from Comcast. Comcast is terrible because they have a monopoly so they don’t have to work for our dollars. We desperately need competition. Bring it!
It makes me wonder why Google isn’t willing to detail a plan. If it walks like a duck…etc.
I wish there was a “like” button for Croc Dundee’s post.
I don’t really see what the detractors are concerned about. Having more options available is almost always a good thing, and the “cost” to the City of the Google proposal seems pretty minimal.
As a Comcast customer, I had been hoping Google would offer something like this, even before they announced it. The sooner they deploy the system the better.
Im getting 56mps downstream from Comcast. If you’re getting only 20 it’s probably your modem. Or maybe you have an old drop…or bad fittings. I’d check into it. Or don’t and just continue getting what you’re getting.
When Adobe allowed people go get the old legacy CS a few weeks ago, it only took 4 mins to download 940megs. I downloaded a office 2010 backup– half a gig in about 6 mins.
A Jim Neal quote? Has he ever done anything but parrot the views of who complains the most in the comments of articles?
I have fiber from AT&T. Last bill was ~$64 for 12 down 1.5 up. And they throttling down Netflix. I would gladly switch to Google fiber! The more competition between ISPs the better.
Sparty – Modem is recent model DOCSIS 3.0.
I rechecked on download speed on a wired (not wi-fi) connection and the download speed was 57mbps and the upload was 11.6mbps.
So that means that the proposed Google service would only be 20 times faster than what I currently have, for the same price. Of course, there would be the connection fee of $300, amortized over however long I keep the Google service, so that could add a couple of dollars a month.
Regardless, the prospect of competition should encourage all MV residents to express interest in the proposed service.
Sparty – Modem is recent model DOCSIS 3.0.
I rechecked on download speed on a wired (not wi-fi) connection and the download speed was 57mbps and the upload was 11.6mbps.
So that means that the proposed Google service would only be 20 times faster than what I currently have, for the same price. Of course, there would be the connection fee of $300, amortized over however long I keep the Google service, so that could add a couple of dollars a month.
Regardless, the prospect of competition should encourage all MV residents to express interest in the proposed service.
Google Fiber now! Or off with their heads…
Council candidate Jim Neal said “I can’t believe the city is (considering Google’s proposal) for one second. In Provo (Google) cut down trees and ruptured a gas line. We are going to have stumps allover Mountain View if they get their way.”
I know who I’m NOT voting for…
How long before this Wi-Fi iteration breaks down, becomes unusable and Google just shrug and walk away?
Anyone thinking about that?
I wouldn’t trust Google as far as I could throw them. They constantly violate their own, publicly stated motto: “Do no evil”. If they actually followed that motto in all situations, it would be a different story.
We want Google Fiber!
Jim Neal will definitely not get my vote.
Here’s why this is a good thing. Have you noticed suddenly that the big boys(AT&T and a couple others) have finally gotten off their duffs and begun to build out the fiber capacity?
Before Google said they would start building the fiber infrastructure, the big boys had no reason to expand to Fiber. They were making a ton of money off the “old pipes”, but now people will see what fiber can do and will demand it. 5 second movie downloads anyone?
If the current providers aren’t in the fiber biz, they will be left in the dust.
What Google has started is a shift in the download speed and capacity for EVERYONE, even if they don’t get it from Google. Now they must compete with speed.
How dare Google throw up this new requirement to provide them with information on our fair city just 10 days before their deadline!
Oh, wait…that’s right…they gave us this checklist back in February: http://mv-voice.com/news/2014/02/19/google-offers-mv-better-internet-access.
Checklist Document:
https://fiber.google.com/about/files/googlefibercitychecklist2-24-14.pdf
Here’s a schedule in their checklist document:
Feb. 24th – Feb. 28th Cities meet with Google to review the checklist in detail.
Feb. 24th – May 1st Cities review and respond to tasks and requirements on the checklist. Google and cities will hold regular calls to discuss progress and questions. Google begins detailed studies in cities.
May 1st, Midnight PT Deadline for cities to respond to items on the checklist.
Well, still only 2 1/2 months?! We are just a tiny unsophisticated 3 city employee village…it will take us years to get around to it. Also, where the heck is this Google company anyway? I think they are in Siberia..we will never get a chance to meet with them. Oh, they are in Mountain View you say? Well, I certainly don’t know where they are!
Also, this is a very draconian checklist. It asks for the most intimate and delicate of information:
“Provide information about existing infrastructure: We’re asking your city to provide accurate information about local infrastructure like utility poles, conduit and existing water, gas and electricity lines so we’d know where to efficiently place every foot of fiber.”
How dare Google demand such private and sensitive information. The location of our utility poles and conduits is TOP SECRET. We fully expect any new utility to discover this information ON THEIR OWN by digging around until they hit something. And, even if we were to provide that information, we would want to lock them up in a 20 year lease BEFORE they can evaluate the situation. That’s only reasonable, right?
“Help ensure access to existing infrastructure: We’re asking your city to help ensure that we, and other providers, can access and lease existing infrastructure. It would be wasteful and disruptive to put up duplicate utility poles or to dig up streets unnecessarily, when we could use existing poles or conduit.”
Sorry Google. We certainly are not going to help you determine what our existing laws are. We expect you to work that out yourself and once locked up with the 20 year agreement, we will show you how you will need to pay us annually as agreed, but will have no legal basis for providing service. That’s only reasonable, right?
“Help make construction speedy and predictable: We’re asking your city to make sure you have efficient and predictable permit and construction processes appropriate for a project as large as a Google Fiber network build.”
Darn it! You want us to provide us with how we do permitting of major utility upgrades such as these? But, but, but..then you would be able to see what the true cost of construction here is in MV. Can’ t you just sign the agreement blindly and pay later?!
Also, this is going to be exactly like Google Wifi in MV! They can just stop giving us the excellent reliability that companies like Comcast already provide (What was that choking sound??) without any remedy. What? You mean in this checklist document they provided MV months ago there is a sample agreement? So what?
“City may terminate this Agreement in the event of a material breach of this Agreement by Licensee and Licensee fails to cure the breach within sixty (60) days of receipt of notice from City.”
Uh. OK. So, this has been provided to us months ago? And not just 10 days ago? I don’t believe it. I don’t care what was published in the Voice and what is on record in the city council minutes. That is my stance and I’m sticking to it! We already have internet. Comcast is plenty fast..sure it goes down often and is only 5pct the speed of Google Fiber, but it’s fine for reading the MV Voice, where I get all my news.
Jim said: “1) Google demanded that the city respond to Google’s checklist within 10 days.”
Let’s ignore the emotional context around the word “demand”, which probably meant something between ‘requested’ or ‘required’. Or more likely, when they requested this months ago, they meant that IF the city wanted to be considered as an early adopter for inexpensive, super-high speed internet access for their residents, they should respond by the requested date.
Jim, you said that Google demanded that the city respond to Google’s checklist within 10 days, when actually it was over two months. Do you not see how misleading your statement is?
You accused us of the 3 D’s: “Distract, Dis-inform and Deflect”, when in fact aren’t you guilty of the same thing? Using the emotional word DEMAND is DISTRACTing. The implication that the city has had only 10 days to review and respond to the checklist is DIS-INFORMation. When called on this, you are resorting to labeling the points raised as a “DEFLECTion”.
It’s also important to know that this “Checklist” is not like signing an agreement or lease. It is simply a request for information from Google so they can estimate the feasibility and expense of the project. If Google comes back with bad terms, then I would hope and expect our City staff and council to represent our interests. Of course, citizen input would be expected and needed.
“Council has concerns with fiber”
Well it can cause excessive flatulence.
Jim Neal – you might want to read the article you linked :
“When AT&T dispatched a contractor to repair the damage, that crew hit a gas line”
“If you want to see what the Google Fiber project did to trees there, you can read it here…”
There’s nothing to see. There is a description that “trees” (two or more) were removed and replaced with saplings.
Also in that article is a statement from the electric utility:
“he said Google — primarily through chief contractor Atlantic Engineering Group — “has done an excellent job.””
Steve – you might want to read all the article before posting a comment!
On a Sunday afternoon late last year, a Google contractor hit a gas line near Wornall Road and 50th Street. That triggered an evacuation of 75 to 100 people at the Kirkwood Condominiums for roughly four hours.
“They butchered ’em, just butchered ’em,”
Oh, the humanity!!!!
@Lilly – So your point is that Google contractors hit gas lines just like AT&T contractors hit gas lines? So we shouldn’t allow any fiber or cable or electrical work that requires digging?
@Jim Neal
Let me get this right; your objections to the city moving forward with Google Fiber are:
1) some trees would be chopped down
2) construction mistakes can happen
3) constructions are disruptive
4) fiber cabinets look ugly
5) they want information that they need to come up with a detailed plan
6) they didn’t give the city a detailed plan
7) they didn’t pay the city enough RESPECT
Am I missing anything?
Let me give you an analogy; a group of city employees come up to your house and demands access. You block their access because you are upset that they wouldn’t negotiate, their truck is blocking your view, and they are walking on your flowers…
meanwhile YOUR HOUSE IS ON FIRE, AND THEY ARE THE FIREMEN!
All of your issues are small potatoes compared to the benefit that this project would bring. It’s not like they are asking for money, or exclusive franchise agreement. What is the problem?
“I am also concerned that the fact that Google is offering the City 5% of the gross revenues from this project could be seen by some as a conflict of interest should this project be approved.”
And this is bad because ????
My concern is that service will be like Google WIFI. It will be tiered to mainly benefit Google employees who live in the city. And it will have dead zones; that Google will not not offer any service to cover the less prestigious areas of the city, like the mobile home parks, who probably need this service the most.
Jim Neal, in the big picture, err on the side of increased competition — always in the interest of the consumer.
Who cares if it’s att, comcast or google. Let them battle while we win.
I have horror stories of being a att and comcast customer for over a decade — simply appalling!
Yay! Google bring on the competition. We should be so lucky that they are challenging Comcast/Att poor value and service. The local council would never dream of doing something like that to help the voters. And, it seems even the wannabe councilors don’t want to help either. Sad. And these are the people who are going to be asking for a raise? I say No fiber, No raise!
“Worth pursuing?” Yes, next gen high speed internet is the most important utility service of the 21st century, one where our nation ranks behind other developed economies. It’s why some munipalities even develop its own public fiber network.
The city is prudent to be cautious after Google wifi, but I ask my fellow residents not to demand our city to procedurally treat this like a housing development which has only mostly negative public impact, and treat it as a 21st century utility service that will potentially benefit every resident and small business. A whole new world is opened up when you talk about data at this speed. It’s equal to the change from dial up to first gen broadband. Other towns can wait for this this utility to mature, and it matters less to Google which cities it picks (and many cities are clamoring), but a future generation of local MV innovators will be left out if our city is behind Palo Alto and Austin on this.
I doubt Google is committed to what they proposed. Look at their free wifi, it’s never been reliable and will be terminated soon, and they just walk away.
I had no idea that filling out their questionnaire/check-list would commit us to a 20 year lease. Thanks Candidate Neal for once again providing us with more of your 3 D’s.
Did you want other bidders? Guess what? There won’t be any. How do I know? Because there haven’t been any all these years. Which company in their right mind would start with a little community like MV? The only reason Google is offering this to us is that their HQ is here.
If you want to earn votes, I would highly recommend not aligning yourself with keeping Comcast’s lousy, expensive service protected from competition and instead focus on issues the voters support. I think you know what those are.
“A whole new world is opened up when you talk about data at this speed”
LOL. Is this really what people’s lives revolve around?
Jim, when you run around squawking about this so-called 10 day deadline that Google is DEMANDING that we adhere to in order to provide the BASIC information they request, even though we have had months to do so, it really reduces your credibility as a candidate.
You make it seem that there has been no opportunity for other companies to provide bids. Other companies have had YEARS and YEARS to provide bids for other forms of internet.
What is your problem with filling out their checklist, giving it to them and then evaluating their bid? If their requirements or contract is problematic, wouldn’t that be the time to cry wolf or yell that the sky is falling?
BTW, if a tree falls on a Google Fiber construction site and Candidate Neal is not around to hear it, did it really fall?
Two quotes:
1. Google has said “this is ideal,” but “if there is something we can’t meet or is unreasonable to let them know. It hasn’t been an all-or-nothing process.”
2. Jim Neal said “I can’t believe the city is (considering Google’s proposal) for one second.
How does it correlate with another quote from Jim Neal:
“I am not against the project”?
If you are not going to consider the proposal, how can you make it better?
Jim, if you have to keep clarifying your position over and over again and attacking people who point out your errors, maybe it’s something you should examine about your communication style?
Jim, not everyone here is trying to be elected to City Council, and treating every person that does not agree with your position as your opponent in upcoming (by the way, when is it?) election looks like paranoia to me.
If quotes I posted are not yours, sue the paper. If they are yours, but you also said something else that turns your position around, you have to think a little more about what are you saying before saying it.
All for a lot of fiber …. but the packaging (huts/boxes/aerial cables) has room for improvement.
I don’t agree about “Google not keeping promises” or otherwise being unreliable. The free WiFi they provided worked very well for me, and the cases of it not working were usually things beyond Google’s control. They decided to not maintain it, and let it die, but they are trying to provide an alternate.
I say, more power to them, and I favor going along with them.
We need fiber competition, let AT&T and Google show us who is best at super high speed Internet at a fair price, let Comcast lower their prices for slower service. Please forget the little details and stop with the he said who said time wasting.
With these new speeds we can have virtual offices and work and socialize from home and then go out to have fun.
To me the most important point here is Google will bring in more competition, which is good for consumers. I have such negative experience with existing ISP that I will welcome just about anything else.
If the politicians have their way then mountain view will move as slow as san francisco, and as “well” regulated. Didn’t Google wifi team worked with san francisco for almost a decade and still no wifi?
I must say, Jim, I *have* read all of the comments (many of yours were regurgitations of previous comments… stellar), and this one made my head snap:
“Lastly, so what if there won’t be any other bidders?… From what I have heard, there are one or two other companies that would be quite interested in competing in the Mountain View Fiber Market and I don’t think it will kill anyone to wait a few months to find out. Why the rush?”
W-O-W. I don’t know what you’ve “heard” but you’re ACTUALLY suggesting that the City pass up a GOLDEN opportunity like this because, meh, someone else MIGHT come along and offer something similar, at no charge, with the exception of a set up fee? Oh, uh huh)
So, do tell us then, how many OTHER proposals have been put in front of the Council? Two? One? Zero..? This is not only looking a gift horse in the mouth, it is then taking a baseball bat to that gift horse’s kneecaps.
well said Shickadelio, “WAITING A FEW MONTHS” in internet age??? hope Jim realize what few months mean in high tech, and looking forward to his answer…
@Jim Neal, I appreciate your concern for the city… but wasn’t the checklist available a long time before the deadline? Comcast and AT&T are absolutely terrible, the city should be jumping at any opportunity to have a company come in and drop an unthrottled fiber network into the city.
I would say I would vote against you if you vote against or hinder Google Fiber, but if it doesn’t happen I’ll be moving long before any election.
Jim Neal. This voter wants you to make this happen and make it happen asap. Figure out how to get it done. We are being held hostage to the awful service as delivered by the worst ranked company in America. City Government’s job is to get us an alternative, asap.
I’m never ever ever going to ever vote for this Jim Neal schill.
Cialis Con Red Bull Keflex For Sinus Infections Cialis Se Vende Con Receta [url=http://cialgeneri.com ]cheap cialis[/url] Buy Spironolactone Cephalexin Synonym
@Sparty — You really should do some research before you post. I invited you to come to the City Council meeting so that you could hear what I have to say for yourself or ask questions, but obviously you prefer the 3-D approach “Distract, Dis-inform and Deflect”. Your constant misinformation about me is easily proven false.
” A Jim Neal quote? Has he ever done anything but parrot the views of who complains the most in the comments of articles?”
I read the materials prepared for the Council and then go to the meetings and speak out about my concerns BEFORE most of the articles are even written about online. I also POST many of the articles that people are responding to.
@DDD — If you had been at the Council Meeting or simply watched the readily available video on the city’s website then perhaps you would understand the context of my comments.
First off, the quote is wrong. I spoke about the problems in Kansas City, not Provo. If you want to see what the Google Fiber project did to trees there, you can read it here:
http://www.kansascity.com/2014/03/30/4926365/google-fiber-construction-disrupts.html )
Second, my comments about the stumps were in relation to the fact thatin addition to Google, the VTA and Caltrain also want to cut down trees for their projects.
Third, my comments saying that “I can’t believe the city is considering this for one second” had to do with the facts that:
1) Google demanded that the city respond to Google’s checklist within 10 days.
2) For something that is so urgent that Google required a 10 day response, they did not even bother to send a single representative to the Council Meeting to answer questions from the Council or the community.
3) Google is asking for the City of Mountain View to commit to a 20 year lease to place their large outdoor cabinets before the sites are selected or the impacts to residents, businesses, trees or streets is known.
4) Google wants access to privileged City utility data
5) Google will not disclose details of the plan, nor their procedures for notifying residents about proposed changes.
6) No EIR has even been started for this project so we do not know what the impact on the environment will be.
For those who are interested in facts, you can watch the video of me addressing city council on this topic here:
http://mountainview.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=1628&view_id=2&embed=1&player_width=640&player_height=480&entrytime=13873&stoptime=14053&auto_start=1%22 (Video of Neal Addressing Council on Google Fiber)
Jim Neal
Candidate, Mountain View City Council
http://electneal.org (Campaign Website)
info@electneal.org
@ Look Deeper — Very good and CONSTRUCTIVE comments! While they may not have been directed to me, I would like to use them to expand further on my thinking. I am not a huge fan of Comcast and I do think that Fiber is a good idea overall, I just want to make sure that it is done right.
In recent months the City has gone out of it’s way to tell everyone that they can’t make exceptions or change the rules for this company or that individual and yet they are being asked to do exactly that in this situation. They all cited serious concerns about the the process and all the unanswered questions and then decided to plow ahead anyway!
I am also concerned that the fact that Google is offering the City 5% of the gross revenues from this project could be seen by some as a conflict of interest should this project be approved.
As someone who works in high tech, I wants the fastest connection possible as I frequently work from home and have to connect from there to my office, but I want to make sure that the City gets the best possible product at the best possible price and with a minimum of disruption to the city.
Most people will just hear “High Speed, Really Cheap!”, but it is the responsibility of the Council to look beyond the numbers and slick marketing and determine ALL the possible negative consequences to the city and only after all the information is known, make an informed decision.
Jim Neal
Candidate, Mountain View City Council
http://electneal.org (Campaign Website)
info@electneal.org
@ParanoidMV — I see you are also a subscriber to the 3-D method (Distract, Dis-inform and Deflect). Here is the text from the Council Report that was presented at the Council Meeting on 4/22:
“Google proposes submitting plans with less detail than normally required by the City (including providing no site-specific traffic-control plans) and would like to submit a single permit application for the entire project. They have requested the City review and respond to their permit application within 10 days.”
Also, no one said the utility info was “Top Secret”, but here is what the City Report says:
“As previously mentioned, Google has asked for extensive mapping information about the City and will be designing their implementation plan from this data. The City does not give out sensitive City-wide utility information. It is staff’s understanding that the majority of the fiber will be hung on existing utility poles. However, there will be some burying of some fiber. It is not known at this time how much will be hung versus buried. Staff will provide utility information on a need-to-know basis, as is currently done.”
Here are the details in the CITY REPORT on the 20 year lease:
“Google anticipates leasing City property to install the Network Huts for a term of approximately 20 years. As part of the checklist process, Google requests the City to agree to the terms of a lease even though the sites will not be determined until Google makes a decision to install the system in Mountain View and designs the system. Google would lease the property at a negotiated fair-market value. The City can include site-specific terms when a site has been selected and also retains complete control over which property it would lease to Google.”
This information all comes directly from the City’s website.
Jim Neal
Candidate, Mountain View City Council
http://electneal.org (Campaign Website)
info@electneal.org
@Steve — Here is the “Nothing to See” part of the article you dismissed:
This spring will look less leafy at 39th and Genessee streets.
Blame the need for Internet speed.
A crew, hired by Google Inc. to make way for the company’s overhead fiber optic lines, transformed the neighborhood ginkgo trees into tall stumps one morning last summer.
“They butchered ’em, just butchered ’em,” said Ted Larkin, the owner of three buildings in the neighborhood.
Complaints would ultimately prompt the removal of what was left of the trees, replaced with saplings needing decades to produce the same shade. Those in the neighborhood notice the difference.
AND
Google’s contractors planted metal cabinets in sidewalks and other places that upset residents in the early months of construction. It was forced to relocate about a dozen of the boxes, sometimes to comply with federal rules against blocking wheelchair access.
It got complaints of workers moving through neighborhoods without identification. Now, the company says, they all wear Google Fiber-branded vests and hats or helmets.
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/03/30/4926365/google-fiber-construction-disrupts.html#storylink=cpy
or see video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNa5tQu3zmY
Jim Neal
Candidate, Mountain View City Council
http://eletneal.org
info@electneal.org
I think as a city, we need to decide if we want to have modern communication infrastructure. If we do, there will be some temporary disruption and inconvenience from the massive construction effort, whether it’s done by Google, AT&T, Comcast, Sonic.net, Paxio, or another company. Jim Neal’s link talked about what that meant for Google Fiber’s first city. I expect following ones to go more smoothly, but regardless, I think it’s worth the pain to get the benefit.
[Full disclosure: I work for Google. Not on Google Fiber. My views are my own.]
@DDD — Thanks for demonstrating the 3-D approach so effectively! Your analogy makes no sense at all. Comparing what Google does to what firefighters do? I respect the fact the people who work for Google work hard, but firefighters have a job where they are required to potentially risk their lives every single day to protect people and property. I can’t think of how installing fiber is similar. My house will not burn down and I will not lose my property, possessions or potentially my life if fiber is not installed.
I am not against the project, I just don’t see the need to rush, nor why Google should be granted special treatment and consideration that no one else gets.
As far as the issue of why a perception of a conflict of interest is bad; if you don’t think it’s a problem then I think that says a lot.
@Scott — I agree with what you are saying in principle, but I disagree with the artificial deadlines that Google is asking for. I want to make sure that the City has enough resources to dedicate to the project IF it goes forward, and that the residents of Mountain View have enough time to provide their feedback and are fully informed about any and all possible consequences.
Jim Neal
Candidate, Mountain View City Council
http://electneal.org (Campaign Website)
info@electneal.org
@Voter — You should read my comments and the article that I wrote:
http://www.mv-voice.com/square/2014/04/23/google-fiber-may-be-coming-soon-but-at-what-price
I am not against the project but I am concerned that it is being fast tracked without getting enough information about possible negative consequences. I would also like to see some competitive bids and proposals. Or are we all satisfied with the current service we have from our current near-monopoly DSL provider?
I think any monopoly or near monopoly only hurts consumers in the long run, so how about we wait for the facts before we all jump on the bandwagon?
Jim Neal
Candidate, Mountain View City Council
http://electneal.org (Campaign Website)
info@electneal.org
@Interesting — I never said that filling out the questionnaire committed us to a 20 year lease, so I am not the one providing disinformation here. I am also not wedded to Comcast or any other DSL providers. It appears that you didn’t even read what I wrote since I clearly said:
” I would also like to see some competitive bids and proposals. Or are we all satisfied with the current service we have from our current near-monopoly DSL provider?”
Here’s a hint: I wasn’t talking about Google when I mentioned the near-monopoly DSL provider, so you are disinforming here as well.
Lastly, so what if there won’t be any other bidders? Does that mean that we shouldn’t even make the effort? From what I have heard, there are one or two other companies that would be quite interested in competing in the Mountain View Fiber Market and I don’t think it will kill anyone to wait a few months to find out. Why the rush?
Jim Neal
Candidate, Mountain View City Council
http://electneal.org
info@electneal.org
@Geek — You really should read ALL my comments and not just those that allow you to distort what I am saying. Here is the link I provided above)
For those who are interested in facts, you can watch the video of me addressing city council on this topic here:
http://mountainview.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=1628&view_id=2&embed=1&player_width=640&player_height=480&entrytime=13873&stoptime=14053&auto_start=1%22 (Video of Neal Addressing Council on Google Fiber)
Jim Neal
Candidate, Mountain View City Council
http://electneal.org (Campaign Website)
info@electneal.org
@Interesting — I haven’t attacked anyone. I just know that it is a common campaign tactic for opponents to Distract, Disinform and Deflect. There is nothing complex about what I said and it is not an attack to point out that people are being deliberately misleading and/or taking my comments out of context.
Are you saying that if someone misrepresents my position I am not entitled to respond? My position is quite clear on the matter to anyone who watches the video and who read the article that I published before this one was posted.
There are others who made thoughtful posts and brought up additional points of view and thought they were worthy of further discussion. I think most people can read and listen to what I actually said, and compare it to the way that people who do not like the fact that I am asking questions try to alter my meaning, then determine for themselves what to think.
A few people are trying to make this discussion about me, rather than whether or not this project is good for Mountain View. I intend to keep the focus on this project.
Jim Neal
Candidate, Mountain View City Council
http://electneal.org (Campaign Website)
info@electneal.org
@Geek, I welcome people that disagree with my position and often spend a lot of time talking to them and exchanging ideas. What I disagree with is people purposefully misrepresenting what I say, which is why I provided the link to the unedited video so people can judge my words for themselves.
Also, whether I am elected or not, I will continue to fight for the things that matter to the community. Quality of life is a big issue for a lot of people and I thing they should know about projects that could potentially impact that quality.
Jim Neal
Candidate, Mountain View City Council
http://electneal.org (Campaign Website)
info@electneal.org