21–30 of 59 posts
If Google shuts down an ad-sense account for perceived violation without good justification or interaction, how can I expect them not to do the same with my internet for an unjust DMCA complaint?
Sorry for the weak pun, but I really couldn't help myself: I wish the title had been "Why Google is an acceptable ISP". Apropos of the article, I'm increasingly unconvinced that free markets work well enough when they're dealing with infrastructure--roads, train lines, phone lines--that have an expensive one-off set-up cost and then a larger cost of switching while the original provider attempts to recoup the set-up…
There's always been a touch of Willy Wonka style unreality about Google Fiber. Municipalities across the U.S. know that their broadband sucks, and they wrote proposals to Google in lieu of real action, hoping Google could solve their problems with their magic wand. Google still has a "non-evil" and academic reputation in some quarters, although anybody who makes a living on the streets of the internet knows that Goog…
> anybody who makes a living on the streets of the internet knows that Google is the most dangerous and rapacious company on the net. I make a living on the streets of the internet, and could not disagree more with your conclusion. You don't speak for everyone, because you certainly don't speak for me.
Sorry for the weak pun, but I really couldn't help myself: I wish the title had been "Why Google is an acceptable ISP". Apropos of the article, I'm increasingly unconvinced that free markets work well enough when they're dealing with infrastructure--roads, train lines, phone lines--that have an expensive one-off set-up cost and then a larger cost of switching while the original provider attempts to recoup the set-up…
In my city, for example, the city has a contract with a cable operator that basically states that any competitor wishing to enter the city must provide services in all the areas the first-mover provides service. The argument is that this "levels the playing field" among competition while also forcing telecoms to cover areas of the city they may not otherwise lay fiber lines. But in practice it adds a huge barrier to entry for any subsequent companies.
Ultimately I think it comes down to governments making decisions in the best interests of their constituents and not creating these kinds of deals. Let customer demand dictate how much service will be provided in the various segments of the municipality.
Google Fiber: come to Canada please!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> anybody who makes a living on the streets of the internet knows that Google is the most dangerous and rapacious company on the net. I make a living on the streets of the internet, and could not disagree more with your conclusion. You don't speak for everyone, because you certainly don't speak for me.
You are clearly in a minority though. I bet that at least 80% of internet marketers hate Google.
Let's take a poll: How many people here understand that Google is doing this because Internet connections are a complement of your personal data, which they would like to monetize, and not out of the goodness of their hearts?
Let's take a poll: How many people here understand that Google is doing this because Internet connections are a complement of your personal data, which they would like to monetize, and not out of the goodness of their hearts?
Seriously, what would be wrong from a corporate standpoint would be for Google to be doing this out of the goodness of their heart, not the opposite. You don't like it, don't use it. I bet you'll have a real easy time finding someone to pull fiber to your house and provide you with gigabyte internet without trying to monetize it.
Welcome to capitalism, I'm personally quite happy with it.