Google Fiber

[metro]

OKC, Tulsa make pitch for Google broadband
By D. Ray Tuttle
The Journal Record
Posted: 09:17 PM Friday, March 12, 2010


TULSA – Oklahoma City and Tulsa are making a pitch for Google to build and test ultra-high-speed broadband networks in the cities. The Google project could provide service to as many as 500,000 people each in Tulsa and Oklahoma City.

Tulsa launched its campaign for community involvement on Friday, asking Tulsans to fill out an online survey before March 26.

“To be selected, we need community support,” according to the city’s statement. “By filling out a survey, Tulsa will be one step closer to improving our broadband network and creating economic development opportunities in all areas of our city.”

The announcement directed Tulsans to fill out the community support survey at Google Fiber for Communities: Think big with a gig. A Google account is needed to participate and it is free to sign up.

Oklahoma City is assembling a task force to apply to partner with Google, said Kristy Yager, Oklahoma City public information and marketing director.

“We are moving on it,” Yager said. “We are working to establish a Web site.”

Since Feb. 10, Google has sought applications from communities across the U.S. to be one of numerous trial locations across the country.

Oklahoma City deserves the broadband project because of the investment it is making through projects like MAPS, among other factors, Yager said.

“We have a vibrant medical community that could certainly make use of the technology,” Yager said.

Tulsans and Tulsa businesses would improve their Internet access and promote Tulsa as a city on the cutting edge of communication and technology once it obtained the network, said Kim MacLeod, Tulsa director of communications.

A network for high-speed broadband would provide Internet speed more than 100 times faster than what most Americans have access to today. The service would be offered to Tulsans at a price – maybe through a lease arrangement with providers like Cox or AT&T, MacLeod said.

While Oklahoma City has a high penetration rate of people plugged into the World Wide Web, there are several other underserved communities that could make use of the technology, Yager said.

Also, Oklahoma City’s low population density might hurt the city’s chances, Yager added.

“I do not know that Google would lay fiber-optic cable in all 600 square miles,” Yager said. “But the possibility of getting high-speed broadband could change the way Oklahoma City does business.”

Google is not commenting on specific cities or the submissions at this stage, said a Google spokesperson, who requested anonymity.

“We plan to announce a target community or communities this year. We’ll use responses to our request for information to determine where building our network will have the greatest positive impact,” the spokesperson said.

“We’ll offer service at a competitive price to at least 50,000 and potentially up to 500,000 people,” the Google spokesperson said. “We will allow third parties to offer their own Internet access services, or other data services, on our open network. It’s too early to say how much we plan to charge for consumer access to our network.”

Google plans to develop the experimental network, although the company will likely work with a variety of outside partners.

“Our focus right now is on identifying the right community partners. We’ll be sharing more information about our techniques as this project progresses,” the company spokesperson said.

[metro]

Oklahoma City is assembling a task force to apply to partner with Google, said Kristy Yager, Oklahoma City public information and marketing director.

“We are moving on it,” Yager said. “We are working to establish a Web site.”

We'll they better step on it, we have less than 2 weeks left.

[fuzzytoad]

We'll they better step on it, we have less than 2 weeks left.

Is anyone even remotely surprised?

[Kerry]

Also, Oklahoma City’s low population density might hurt the city’s chances, Yager added.

“I do not know that Google would lay fiber-optic cable in all 600 square miles,” Yager said. “But the possibility of getting high-speed broadband could change the way Oklahoma City does business.”

Yet another reason why OKC should consider mass de-annexation of rural land.

[Spartan]

Every city in the state has applied for this..

[kd5ili]

Every city in the state has applied for this..

LOL...every city in every state has probably applied for this.

-Chris-

[dmoor82]

Yet another reason why OKC should consider mass de-annexation of rural land.

^^^and OKC's population wouldnt be that much lower either!all that unused,under developed land just sitttin there hurting our density!

[Kerry]

^^^and OKC's population wouldnt be that much lower either!all that unused,under developed land just sitttin there hurting our density!

For what it is worth. If OKC was confined to existing urban developement the population density would be 3X higher.

Oklahoma City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As of the census[1] of 2000, there were 506,132 people, 204,434 households, and 129,360 families residing in the city. The population density was 321.9/km² (833.8/mi²) with 2,317.4/mi² for an urban area[27] that occupies a small portion within the city's incorporated limits, which cover hundreds of square miles of rural land.

[dmoor82]

^^^ I know!,but if you listen to out of towners,hell even Tulsan's, on other message boards/forums about OKC's density,you would think in OKC there is a house or two every 1/2 mile spread out over 607 sq/miles!LOL I mean come on people!and they actually believe this to be true,and use it against OKC!

[Kerry]

^^^ I know!,but if you listen to out of towners,hell even Tulsan's, on other message boards/forums about OKC's density,you would think in OKC there is a house or two every 1/2 mile spread out over 607 sq/miles!LOL I mean come on people!and they actually believe this to be true,and use it against OKC!

Can you blame them? At 800 people/sq mile that is just over 1 person per acre, and that is the average. Think about that for a minute.

[okcpulse]

Can you blame them? At 800 people/sq mile that is just over 1 person per acre, and that is the average. Think about that for a minute.

Kerry, Oklahoma City's urbanized area takes up only a 3rd of the city's entire land mass. That area covers 240 contiguous square miles and comprises of a population of 519,000, or 95% of Oklahoma City's entire population. The remaining 5% are scattered throughout Oklahoma City's rural areas outside of the urbanized area.

That translates to 2,162 people per square mile. This has been rehashed many times, and it is also why it is a bad idea to even rely on population density figures of a city's land area. The ONLY time population density of a city's kand area should be used are for cities who area 100% developed or are getting pretty close like Chicago, LA, New York or even St. Louis.

Think about THAT for a minute. Heck, you can even see where everyone lives in OKC just by looking at a wallmap.

[Kerry]

Kerry, Oklahoma City's urbanized area takes up only a 3rd of the city's entire land mass. That area covers 240 contiguous square miles and comprises of a population of 519,000, or 95% of Oklahoma City's entire population. The remaining 5% are scattered throughout Oklahoma City's rural areas outside of the urbanized area.

That translates to 2,162 people per square mile. This has been rehashed many times, and it is also why it is a bad idea to even rely on population density figures of a city's land area. The ONLY time population density of a city's kand area should be used are for cities who area 100% developed or are getting pretty close like Chicago, LA, New York or even St. Louis.

Think about THAT for a minute. Heck, you can even see where everyone lives in OKC just by looking at a wallmap.

That is what I am saying. OKC needs to dump the rural portion. Regional retail marketing relies on population density, among other things.

[dmoor82]

^^^^ YES! even if OKC dumped The rural portion,OKC's metro would still be The same!so no loss there, only about 40K loss for The city!

[Kerry]

This is data from 1990 but is probably about the same. Of the 100 largest cities by population, OKC is 98th in density. At 2,162 we would move up to 78 - just between Austin and Freemont, CA.

http://www.census.gov/population/www...0027/tab22.txt

[dmoor82]

^^^Wow,OKC is a city built around The automobile and we need to break away from that as much as possible!I read somewhere that The most densely populated city /area in Oklahoma is The Village at just under 4k/sq mi.!That is still low compared to other cities,but alot of cities have a 50-100 year, or more head start on OKC!Kerry,2100k /sq mile is still low but alot better than the current 800-900/sq mile! BTW please excuse my grammar and typing!

[Kerry]

^^^Wow,OKC is a city built around The automobile and we need to break away from that as much as possible!I read somewhere that The most densely populated city /area in Oklahoma is The Village at just under 4k/sq mi.!That is still low compared to other cities,but alot of cities have a 50-100 year, or more head start on OKC!Kerry,2100k /sq mile is still low but alot better than the current 800-900/sq mile! BTW please excuse my grammar and typing!

I'm not the grammar/spelling police. I leave that to people who are losing debates on the politics page.

Good point about the 100 years head start. I made that point in another thread a few weeks ago.

[bbhill]

just voted online for okc. we have no chance in hell though.

[okcpulse]

That is what I am saying. OKC needs to dump the rural portion. Regional retail marketing relies on population density, among other things.

Okay, I see whatr you are getting at. In that case, I second your motion. All in favor say aye.

[SkyWestOKC]

Aye!

[dmoor82]

Aye!

[HOT ROD]

Aye

[ljbab728]

That is what I am saying. OKC needs to dump the rural portion. Regional retail marketing relies on population density, among other things.

And then all of that area would eventually be taken up by suburbs meaning that OKC would get no tax benefits in 50 years. It would be like Tulsa or Dallas surrounded by suburbs with no area for expansion. The retail marketing people aren't so dumb as to not understand what causes population density figures and how that relates to their target markets.

[betts]

The retail marketing people aren't so dumb as to not understand what causes population density figures and how that relates to their target markets.

Actually, I think the retail marketing people ARE that dumb. They also look at income rather than disposable income when making store location decisions. Those are two reasons why we don't have a lot of stores that other smaller cities do.

[HOT ROD]

yep, they are that dumb.

Im not suggesting we get rid of ALL of the rural, Im suggesting we get rid of most of the watershed areas. I think we should keep the rural area that is near the already developed suburbs like the far SW/McClain County, the NW/Canadian/Kingfisher corner, and the N Central. Keeping these 3 would ensure OKC could expand retail if necessary to keep the tax base.

By getting rid of the West/Canadian County, NE, and SE/Potawattamie areas, we could still cut the city area in half by doing all of this, 300 sq mi is a nice figure to me.

But then again, OKC has so much inner city land to gentrify - I think (and hope) this becomes more of the focus for revitalizing the tax base instead of continuing city sprawl near the growing suburbs. ......

I really wish the city would define this as the growth boundary, and establish 'expectations' for inner city density based on rings drawn away from downtown.

[Kerry]

And then all of that area would eventually be taken up by suburbs meaning that OKC would get no tax benefits in 50 years. It would be like Tulsa or Dallas surrounded by suburbs with no area for expansion. The retail marketing people aren't so dumb as to not understand what causes population density figures and how that relates to their target markets.

All that rural land and tax revenue doesn't come free to the city. The city is resposible for infrastructure construction (roads, sewers, etc) as well as providing public safety services (police stations, officers, fire stations, fire fighters, etc).

There is plenty of space in the exiting urbanized area that can be filled in and it would probably take another 50 years to do so. The city should also focus on increasing the current real estate values, and subsequent property taxes instead.