Seattle Not High-Tech Hub Enough for Google?

landspeeder-1.jpg
Hover cars. That's what we need to make Google like us.
When Google announced it was going to provide high-speed fiber-optic internet service to a handful of cities around the country, Mayor Mike McGinn did his eager best to move to the front of the line, sending in Seattle's entreaty 24 hours after the call for applications.

The Emerald City and Google would seem like a natural fit. Even if this is Microsoft's sandbox.

As Google mulls over its options, tech writers have been wondering who'll make the final cut. A popularity contest that's making Seattle look like an also-ran.

Slate's Farhad Manjoo loves the Google-as-service-provider idea. Saying it will force current monopolistic ISPs like Comcast and Verizon to upgrade their service and lower their prices. He just doesn't love it for Seattle.

Circuitous as it is, though, the ISP initiative might actually work, especially if Google picks the right cities to serve. I'd urge it to go after a few high-profile tech hubs--places like San Francisco; Austin, Texas; Boston; or some areas around Washington, D.C., and New York--where there are loads of people who want (and can afford) super-fast Internet.
Um, Farhad? We're a high-tech hub with rich people who can afford, and want, super-fast internet? Where's the love?

It doesn't get any better at Engadget. Who, even when reporting on Seattle's "rapid response," couldn't help but suggest a "better" alternative: Raleigh, North Carolina.

The good news is that tech writers aren't going to decide who Google picks. Google will.

And just as the geeky scribes have their reasons for which city most deserves the chance to download digital copies of "Astral Weeks: Live at the Hollywood Bowl" in the time it takes to snap your fingers, so too does Google have its reasons for picking someone else. A someone else I'm still hoping turns out to be us.

 
comments powered by Disqus

Friends to Follow