201–210 of 287 posts
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.
Is there any rime or reason to the cities that Google chooses to put fiber into? Is it a matter of more friendly local government, less resistant local teleco's, a combination thereof or some other factors? Just seems the locations aren't exactly tech hubs so I'm trying to get a better idea of how the expansion works.
Places like Kansas City and Atlanta are much more development-friendly. In Atlanta, it doesn't matter how ugly your development is--we're talking about a city bisected by a 15 lane highway. Moreover, these are "up and coming" cities who see fiber as a competitive advantage. San Francisco doesn't feel the need to offer fiber to get tech workers to move there. Heck, they're trying to get the tech workers to move out. A place like Atlanta is the exact opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that reality one wonder why the incumbents don't raise all their speeds to dissuade google from entering there various markets. Perhaps the shear magnitude of their collective greed obscures their reasoning?
There's no money in building "dumb pipes" to the internet. Verizon's wireline margin over the last couple of quarters has been under 5% ( http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/verizon-nears-the-en... ). Note Google has never revealed how much profit Fiber actually makes. The existing networks are fast enough to service what makes the money: video services. The cable companies will only upgrade the pipes to the exte…
There's no money in building dumb electric lines or dumb sewer lines or dumb phones lines either, so the solution there was to guarantee customers in return for regulating the service.
This would create a common platform upon which video service providers could compete equally. As it stands now, integrated companies like Comcast have no incentive to make sure Netflix, Hulu, HBO Go, Sling TV, etc. work well for their customers. Quite the opposite, actually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Regulatory capture doesn't have to mean literal corruption. It can cover situations where governments acting on their own and in good faith, assume the status quo and grandfather incumbents. It might not even be on purpose, but rather the logical consequence of a distaste for laws and regulations with retroactive effects. But the end result is the same: legal obligations that impact new players more than old. So the…
In every city I've studied, incumbents are bound by the same requirement to build-out their network as potential competitors. I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but the only one that comes to mind is Google Fiber: they get a pass on build-out requirements. These requirements curtail the most obvious route to competition: deploying in dense, rich neighborhoods where the incumbents generate most of their profits.
Is there any rime or reason to the cities that Google chooses to put fiber into? Is it a matter of more friendly local government, less resistant local teleco's, a combination thereof or some other factors? Just seems the locations aren't exactly tech hubs so I'm trying to get a better idea of how the expansion works.
Friendly local government is a big factor. For example: Google looked at Seattle's NIMBY laws regarding utility boxes on sidewalks (each requiring a lengthy community approval process) and said, "Nope!" Seattle's new mayor is now looking how to streamline the process to make the city more Google friendly, should the opportunity arise again.
http://www.geekwire.com/2014/seattle-approves-bill-allows-fi...
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.
How about we use common sence and let competition work its way until we actually OBSERVE bad effects instead of condemming a company because they might do something bad at some point in the future. Is this not one of the major advances that was made law in the last 200 years?
Most of the historical example of these laws in practice are so absured that you can only laught about them. Companys not allowed to unite because they would togheter have 8% of a market.
This law, since it has been on the books has served as block for competition WAY more often then it has helped. I encourage everybody to look at this history of this law and not JUST the 2-3 partial success story that seam to be the only once that are ever talked about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To put 'Getting Netflix' into perspective for you, my home connection is 2 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up and I have no issue watching Netflix steams with good enough quality to be enjoyable. We choose to get this slow connection due to the cost ($15/mo) and see no reason to pay for higher tiers of speed from Time Warner.
Really surprising - I would have thought that would be a "total no-go" environment. Thanks for the data point!