KC Biz reporter tweets this will go beyond KCK and KCMO and details will follow.

http://twitter.com/#!/sstagemeyer/status/70546650774511616

From the press releases and articles I have read, it sounds like Google will open up large areas to the service all at once, starting first in KCK and then quickly in KCMO, rather than the neighborhood by neighborhood approach we have seen with cable providers.  Since the deal was largely due to Google's collaboration with KCP&L, it sounds like this could ultimately be distributed outside of the KCMO limits.  Lines will be run above ground for the most part, preventing the need for digging and borrowing/sharing lines with other ISPs.  Google is not using this as a loss leader, so they will try to turn a profit or at the very least break even, but the buildout using existing infrastructure should make this pretty cheap to implement compared to what other ISPs did in the past. 

Yael obviously doesn't understand what Google is doing.  The service is dead simple.  Use KCP&L lines, string fiber cables, turn it on, let people use the Internet as they wish.  They have said in the past, they will try to make this competitive with existing Internet plans which I'm guessing could put the cost for the customer at anywhere from $30/month to $100/month.  To really gain traction, I think they have to keep it at or under $50.  Otherwise, not enough will adopt it for Google to call it a success.  On another positive note, one would expect TWC, Comcast, AT&T, etc., to basically offer free Internet in order to maintain customers for bundles of TV and phone.  KC is going to be the ideal test bed for a Silicon Valley startup (or big name like TWC) to offer cable channels over ISP legitimately for the first time ever.  KC could be the first US city to allow pay per channel cable over ISP.  As far as I know, there is no such thing as "inferior" fiber service to a residence, unless it is throttled, blocked, or frequently down.  Google will probably never have a more open service than it will initially, testing the KC area out to see where traffic flows. 

Fone would expect TWC, Comcast, AT&T, etc., to basically offer free Internet in order to maintain customers for bundles of TV and phone.

I don't know about AT&T, but the cable operators are unlikely to give away broadband because their broadband profit margins are a lot higher than on video. Cable ops spend about $18-$20/month to deliver broadband to each customer, who's paying $40+. Video has a thin margin and, in some cases, is only break even. From what I've heard, voice pretty profitable.

who in their right mind would pay $40 for 3 to 15 Mbps when they could get potentially around $50 or cheaper 1 Gbps. 

Is it possible that Time Warner Cable is making upgrades to its network in anticipation of competing with the new Google Fiber?

It would have to be around $50 because every analyst survey I've seen says that most consumers are unwilling to pay more than $40-$45 for broadband even when it's a lot faster than what they currently have. That's why the take rates are so low for the 50 Mbps and 100 Mbps services. For example, in NYC, Time Warner has about a half-million broadband subs, and only about 2,000 have the 50 Mbps service.

It costs $750-$1,000 per sub to build a GPON network. So to get the subscriber price down to $50, Google and its partners would have to lock customers into contracts long enough to recoup the construction costs, or sell them enough additional services (e.g., video), or sell enough advertising, or some combination.

It's one thing to lay fiber backbones. It's another, very expensive thing to extend laterals from those backbones out to each customer's home or office.

It would have to be around $50 because every analyst survey I've seen says that most consumers are unwilling to pay more than $40-$45 for broadband even when it's a lot faster than what they currently have. That's why the take rates are so low for the 50 Mbps and 100 Mbps services.

What is the average basic bundled cost of a 10 Mbps connection? $35/$40?  Aren't they asking you to pay $20 extra dollars a month for 5x better connection, and no increase in upload speed? 

I would imagine Google is willing to lose money on fiber service in KC. They've got what, $6B in cash right now? I don't think covering their expenses is nearly as important to them as charging a low enough price to ensure widespread adoption. I'm guessing that's why they've been cagey on pricing.