141–150 of 487 posts
Usually when people in Silicon Valley use the word "amazing", I roll my eyes. But $0 internet is very amazing. On top of that, $120/mo for cutting edge consumer entertainment is just a slap in the face to other service providers.
is $120/mo good? That's more than any other bill I pay except rent.
While I am super happy that the cable industry is getting disrupted as it deserves to be(the wireless industry sucks too, maybe a tech company can buy TMobile or Sprint), I feel uneasy about the following two points: 1) Profitability: I wonder how profitable and sustainable this is for Google? They can subsidize it for only so long before deciding to discontinue it as has been happening to many of their services rece…
re: #2 have you been following this story at all? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nsa+whistleblower+william+binney (lmgtfy used not because I'm trying to be a dick, but rather because the direct google search gives a url that contains all kinds of extra parameters)
While I am super happy that the cable industry is getting disrupted as it deserves to be(the wireless industry sucks too, maybe a tech company can buy TMobile or Sprint), I feel uneasy about the following two points: 1) Profitability: I wonder how profitable and sustainable this is for Google? They can subsidize it for only so long before deciding to discontinue it as has been happening to many of their services rece…
re 1: The more people on the Internet, the more potential google customers, and eyeballs on their ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
indeed. The scales of computing technologies have increased by many order of magnitude in their history, and it has never been "enough." Bill Gates infamously demonstrated the danger of predicting how much RAM/Clock speed/Bandwidth/etc. is "enough." EDIT: fixed a rather wacky typo
* Bill Gates infamously demonstra...* Let me stop you right there. http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1997/01/1484
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, how much monitoring and data collection is Google doing here? I wouldn't sign up for Google provided internet.
Here's the privacy policy: https://fiber.google.com/legal/privacy.html
Other departments of google don't know which websites you go to, "except with your consent." There can be a lot of mischief hidden in those 4 words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
on Point 2: How is this any different then today with Comcast/Verizon etc..?
It's different because Comcast/Verizon don't have your email and your calendar and your web surfing habits and your voicemail and your text messages and your contacts and did I mention your email?
Many people use Comcast/Verizon-provided email services. Most people use them for their home voicemail too. And they can absolutely see your surfing habits if they want to -- excluding encrypted communications, of course.
Here in France, I get Internet + TV + free phone to 50+ countries for about 40$/mo.
I don't think there is anything above 60-80£/mo here (that would include all of the above + mobile + paid TV channels), so 120$/mo seems really kind of expensive to me!
Thank GOD they're disrupting this industry. All the telcos are worthless "Soviet bureaus" that deserve death. It's really sort of amazing to think about. In all my years on this planet I have never been pleased with a telecom company. Never. I have always felt like I was paying far too much for inferior service, contemptible customer support, and endless efforts to further "monetize" me through harassing phone calls…
> There is not a single other industry I can say that about, certainly not one that comes to mind so quickly. Airlines? > contemptible customer support IMHO better than Google's dogmatic avoidance of any kind of customer support.
Is anything actually 'free' in this world?? I wonder how much of my data they will be using without my permission to serve me ads...although I guess targeted TV commercials are a heck of a lot better than random stuff I see now. Double-edged sword if you ask me.
Free internet. That's rather creepy from Google. When they roll this big it would hurt other providers, which in itself isn't bad, but having only Google as a choice is. Can they even do that by the way (anti-monopoly regulations)?
They'll have a hell of a time getting in other cities in the first place. AT&T and the major cablecos typically have an absolute, legally-sanctioned stranglehold on their markets.
If Google is offering 100x the speed in another city, Time Warner, Comcast, AT&T etc. will have a hard time explaining why they should retain their monopoly unless they offered something competitive.