191–200 of 287 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like the opposite of anti-competitive from my perspective.
Dumping a product on the market at below-cost in order to force your competitors out of business is classic anti-competitive conduct.
Hopefully it'll at least scare Comcast and AT&T into stepping up their game. I'd be really thrilled if it straight-up killed Windstream.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like the opposite of anti-competitive from my perspective.
Dumping a product on the market at below-cost in order to force your competitors out of business is classic anti-competitive conduct.
And if Google Fiber is indeed a loss leader, then each successive deployment will be more difficult to finance. And they've only deployed a few small communities.
But that's not Google's goal. Their goal is just to make sure that consumers have a broadband alternative in the markets where they currently do not. That's much more modest, and to me it seems competitive rather than anti-competitive. I certainly hope they come to my town, where Comcast is the only option if I want more than 5 Mbps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like the opposite of anti-competitive from my perspective.
Dumping a product on the market at below-cost in order to force your competitors out of business is classic anti-competitive conduct.
In this hypothetical situation, Google uses its internet access as a loss leader to sell hypothetical services which require high speed broadband. Traditional ISPs will use internet access as a loss leader to other services, such as phone and television.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't think that the core of the issue is regulatory capture, rather than a failing of "the market"? It takes a lot of money to break into a captured market, which is why it takes a large company to do it. Google entering the ISP market has done more to shake up and spur on the incumbents in the past couple of years than anything regulators have done. And furthermore, you can be assured that their doing so is abs…
People trot out "regulatory capture" but can never give a straight answer about what is being captured and how that leads to a lack of competition. Verizon wants to wire up the yuppie neighborhoods here in Baltimore with FiOS. That'd be major competition for Comcast, because those yuppies subscribing to triple play are where all the money comes form. The city won't let them do it, because they demand Verizon wire up…
So the question is whether Comcast has to meet the same standard of building out their network in poor neighborhoods as Verizon does.
I'm fully aware of the extreme cost of rolling out a fiber infrastructure in new locations, but I still wonder why Google isn't more aggressive with their expansion. While the upfront costs are great, they more or less have guaranteed success in most major cities. Nobody likes the incumbent telcos--they're hated all over the US. I just dream of a world in which we aren't getting raped by Comcast, TWC, and Cox. They a…
Google does not want to be in the telco business at all, it just has to be to protect the source of its revenue which is people connecting to them via some ISP. They are purposely building out in cheap to build areas. If they started hooking up rural areas and areas with high land values and labor it would be a very expensive exercise. What Google is trying to do is get into enough homes as cheaply as possible to lig…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a huge jump. Any idea what they were (or are) paying?
I think it was $59-69/mo -- I know it wasn't > 70 and not cheaper than 50 from the conversations I'm trying to recall in my brain.