West Des Moines: 48 square miles
OKC: 620 square miles

Quicker to lay/install fiber in a footprint 1/12 the size of OKC. Also, West Des Moines may not have a fiber provider already.

ATT has been aggressive in OKC with laying/installing fiber in new home construction areas, and the price has been competitive. What would Google Fiber offer that ATT does not?

Mainly cheaper service, useful extras, and less complicated network setup for advanced users like me. AT&T Fiber's current offer is $80/mo for 1Gbps service (if you turn on Autopay - otherwise it's $85/mo); Google Fiber is $70/mo for that same service. Google Fiber also includes 1TB of storage in Google Drive for free as part of the subscription; AT&T doesn't include anything comparable. As far as the network setup goes - AT&T Fiber does subscriber authentication via their "Residential Gateway" (RG) box - their glorified modem/router combo box - whereas Google Fiber does subscriber authentication at the ONT - the box on the wall that the fiber plugs into. Because of that, all AT&T Fiber customers are forced to use the RG, regardless of whether or not they want to run their own router. This is problematic because the RG that AT&T supplies is often unstable and has other built-in limitations - and it's one extra box that you have to supply power to. Google Fiber allows you to connect your own hardware directly to the ONT which simplifies things greatly for more advanced setups.

Mainly cheaper service, useful extras, and less complicated network setup for advanced users like me. AT&T Fiber's current offer is $80/mo for 1Gbps service (if you turn on Autopay - otherwise it's $85/mo); Google Fiber is $70/mo for that same service. Google Fiber also includes 1TB of storage in Google Drive for free as part of the subscription; AT&T doesn't include anything comparable. As far as the network setup goes - AT&T Fiber does subscriber authentication via their "Residential Gateway" (RG) box - their glorified modem/router combo box - whereas Google Fiber does subscriber authentication at the ONT - the box on the wall that the fiber plugs into. Because of that, all AT&T Fiber customers are forced to use the RG, regardless of whether or not they want to run their own router. This is problematic because the RG that AT&T supplies is often unstable and has other built-in limitations - and it's one extra box that you have to supply power to. Google Fiber allows you to connect your own hardware directly to the ONT which simplifies things greatly for more advanced setups.

I hadn't had a fresh reason to dislike ATT in a long time. I knew they'd have a way to screw up fiber. #smh. C'mon, OEC, you're our only hope...

I have AT&T Fiber, and have had NO issues, at all. I love it! I get a gig for $50 a month (new neighborhood special) and also won't have rate hikes for 5 years. So there is that.

I hadn't had a fresh reason to dislike ATT in a long time. I knew they'd have a way to screw up fiber. #smh. C'mon, OEC, you're our only hope...

To be fair, I should say that the actual service itself from AT&T is fantastic, and I can't recommend it highly enough. I haven't had a single problem with it since having it installed several years ago - it's been rock solid and speedy the entire time, unlike my experience with Cox. In the absence of Google/OEC fiber, if AT&T Fiber is an option for you, I wouldn't hesitate to switch.

And to address my complaint with the RG - there IS a way to put the RG into what's called "IP Passthrough" mode in order to use your own networking gear - that's what I've done. There are limitations with this setup, but for the most part it does work well enough. My complaint though is that even with this configuration, there's still an extra box that I have to keep powered on and connected to my network solely because it authenticates me to AT&T. There are hacky ways to fully bypass the RG but *none* are supported by AT&T so I just kinda deal with the extra hardware. Honestly though this is only an issue for advanced users that want to use their own networking gear - the router/access point functionality is acceptable enough for most regular users.

To be fair, I should say that the actual service itself from AT&T is fantastic, and I can't recommend it highly enough. I haven't had a single problem with it since having it installed several years ago - it's been rock solid and speedy the entire time, unlike my experience with Cox. In the absence of Google/OEC fiber, if AT&T Fiber is an option for you, I wouldn't hesitate to switch.

And to address my complaint with the RG - there IS a way to put the RG into what's called "IP Passthrough" mode in order to use your own networking gear - that's what I've done. There are limitations with this setup, but for the most part it does work well enough. My complaint though is that even with this configuration, there's still an extra box that I have to keep powered on and connected to my network solely because it authenticates me to AT&T. There are hacky ways to fully bypass the RG but *none* are supported by AT&T so I just kinda deal with the extra hardware. Honestly though this is only an issue for advanced users that want to use their own networking gear - the router/access point functionality is acceptable enough for most regular users.

I've had my own networking setup for years and I'd almost certainly want to maintain it. I even at one point maintained my own iptables Linux firewall by hand on a dedicated box, and in the rare occasion Cox might have to come out and look at my setup, they'd just say "what the heck is that?" LOL.

iVe got Cox 1Gbps downstream service but the 40Mbps upstream is brutal when I upload videos to my YT channels or for file pushes to a network server through my employer's VPN. So if all.else is equal, give me my symmetric gig pipe and let me hook it up. That's why I want OECFiber.

After starting off satisfied, I'm about ready to give up on T-Mobile cellular internet.

Most mornings the speed is so slow to be unusable. That's a big problem for someone like me that has business needs, especially in the AM.

I've had my own networking setup for years and I'd almost certainly want to maintain it. I even at one point maintained my own iptables Linux firewall by hand on a dedicated box, and in the rare occasion Cox might have to come out and look at my setup, they'd just say "what the heck is that?" LOL.

iVe got Cox 1Gbps downstream service but the 40Mbps upstream is brutal when I upload videos to my YT channels or for file pushes to a network server through my employer's VPN. So if all.else is equal, give me my symmetric gig pipe and let me hook it up. That's why I want OECFiber.

I usually let the cable guy do whatever he needs to do to get it all set up, then he leaves and I take it all apart and reconfigure it with my hardware. My setup doesn't sound as complicated as yours might be though!

After starting off satisfied, I'm about ready to give up on T-Mobile cellular internet.

Most mornings the speed is so slow to be unusable. That's a big problem for someone like me that has business needs, especially in the AM.

It's truly an incredible phenomenon that internet can work so well at the start of every service and slowly decline to the point of frustration.

No but for awhile it almost seemed like Google was going to give up on Fiber. At least the way I interpreted it. I seen them recall bailing on some city they had already started physical work in(Louisville maybe?) and the future of Fiber even in cities like Kansas City seemed to be in question. Google has a bad track record of starting things and then abandoning them.

But maybe with this announcement of them increasing their speeds that means they are investing into their system and perhaps an expansion is in play. They already planned OKC in the past so it seems we’d have a good potential of being first into part of an expansion plan of theirs. That’s what I meant.


I think it was Louisville - but that was because of the failure of their "microtrenching" plan using even shallower trenches. They decided to bail when their network wasn't stable from the fiber failures.