Can you elaborate on these benefits, Duncan. I see from the link you provided that Google hopes to offer ridiculously fast internet to an insignificant minority of Americans (50,000 to 500,000), but is that it?

I only ask because Google has a deplorable political and environmental reputation, due to an ecologically devastating server on the banks of the Colorado River, and their efforts to assist the Chinese government with satellite surveillance of the Chinese.

This is a great way of forcing the telcos to roll this out as a service to their customers. We had a trial setup in Shrewsbury a few years ago (they own their own isp) and I was one of the lucky chosen few to get it installed. Once installed, they went and ran a test and then shut the whole project down, that was in 2000, I have no idea what went wrong probably cost back then. I work for a major player in the optical networking field and we were one of the first companies to make it a feasible reality through the use of optical filters and multiplexers. Long story short the industry grew fast and furiously and then the bubble burst. We are still in business however a lot of major players aren't and it is about time for a resurgence in this method of delivery. Its cheaper to install now and all of the components are now made in either China, Japan, or S. Korea so its affordable.

Matt-
This is the first time i've ever heard anyone say that Google has deplorable environmental and political standings, aside from sensationalist news stories by right wing publishers. From all the work they are doing trying to power their own factories and server centers, as well as fighting to keep information free, I fail to see any evidence of them... in fact, I tried searching for evidence of this and came up with nothing. Googles work with alternative energy, vehicles and open source are nothing short of amazing.
I wonder, do you know anything about the technical world and companies such as EMC or Microsoft? Those are the ones who don't care what they are doing and are supplying the carbon emitting systems to the world. I also wonder, when things like this are said, is if people just regurgitate the first thing they might hear on Fox news.
Can you please elaborate as well as look up the things they are doing to counteract any sort of damage they are causing? Look up Google's 'don't be evil' meetings as well. After that, if you still feel the same, can you please explain why?

http://beforeitsnews.com/news/23405/Concern_over_Possible_Google-NSA_Cooperation.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020304057.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/186786/google_attack_part_of_widespread_spying_effort.html

Bah. My service is pretty damn fast as it is.

Vintage,

I know the industry just fine, and I do try not to regurgitate rumors. Also, I have no more respect for Microsoft or many other corporations. Did I suggest that in my post?

See Big Asshole's links for some substantiating pieces.
Here's another: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/03/0081946

BTW, you might have missed articles on it due to my misidentification of the site as the Colorado River. The server is on the Columbia River.

Secondly, the right wing never complains about the environment; you're blaming the wrong group. The right wing denies the existence of environmental problems and strenuously defends their right to destroy the environment in the name of profit, mainly through think tanks, lobbyists, and massive contributions to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, through which they've funded anti-EPA legislation, anti-health care legislation, and the Tea Party movement.

Paxton, I'm afraid of U.S. surveillance, too. It's just that this conversation is about Google.

Frankly, I'm not really concerned about internet speed. I don't watch much TV, and the picture looks fine to me when I do. So, if that's the primary benefit, I'm not eager to sign up. Is it posed as something that will put us on the map, or increase business prospects, jobs, population, education...all of the above?

Thanks, Paxton.

As for the health care part, I don't think that's entirely accurate, as, ironically, I just watched my online cardiogram and heart sonogram from an online server where its stored by UMass two days ago.

I get your drift, though.

This is just not my way of thinking at all. That sentence kind of sounds like the old "my "x" was just fine, why did they have to go and change it" stuff my grandparents would say. Then they would find themselves years later changing the channel from their seats with the new fangled remote control or skipping to the next song on their cd player. I am sure that your TV and internet connection seem fine now, I think I just see more that can be done with the technology.

For me more bandwidth would mean that web applications could be developed that would be richer, you could conceivable run your OS from a remote server, not needing local hard drives running your applications. This eliminates failed drives, viruses, updates and other nuisances that come along with a poorly maintained computer. The bandwidth would allow content producers to really distribute their products to you without the need for a physical distribution system. It would also mean that collaboration in real time on larger files could be possible. Tracking live instruments from multiple locations via the net, that sounds amazing to me.

I am not criticizing people who don't want technological change or are apprehensive about it. I often think that getting back to basics and getting rid of all of it would be a relief. I just see so much cool stuff that can still be done on the net, I can't help but want to see it further.

Cool beans!

I'm not opposed to the upgrades and potential technological benefits - I welcome them! I was just muckraking and looking for some perspectives.

that is so sweet