281–287 of 287 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google said they considered the open access model but rejected it. I don't think they explained why, though.
They don't want to dig only to have someone else undercut them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are right but it's deeper than that. "Anti-competitive" is not even a valid concept. Companies are supposed to do everything they can to beat their competition. That is simply called "being competitive." It's kind of like the word "progressive" as in "the Progressive movement." It's a linguistic deception that started out as a kind of dishonest propoganda.
> Companies are supposed to do everything they can to beat their competition. That is simply called "being competitive." Real competition is stabbing your competitors in the face and taking their stuff. We prohibit that because it rewards the wrong kinds of competitors. Prohibitions on anticompetitive conduct are rooted in the same principle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are right but it's deeper than that. "Anti-competitive" is not even a valid concept. Companies are supposed to do everything they can to beat their competition. That is simply called "being competitive." It's kind of like the word "progressive" as in "the Progressive movement." It's a linguistic deception that started out as a kind of dishonest propoganda.
It's a perfectly valid concept. A company takes action not aimed at succeeding in the market, but instead aimed at damaging their competitors. The direct goal is to reduce the amount of competition in the market, aka being "anti-competitive". Companies are not supposed to do everything they can to beat their competition. That's closer to a description of organized crime.
That is in free market capitalism, where the initiation of force by the government or companies against other companies is barred.
For instance, in free market capitalism, telecom companies are not granted local monopolies, so the only way for a telecom company to hurt its competition is to beat its competition on price or service, since anyone is free to build telecom infrastructure. (Obviously, this is not the system we have in the US, where telecom monopolies are rampant, but we should.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you really claming that there is not a single accaptable email hoster, even for money anywhere on the internet? Even if there is no good one, there CLEAR are still many, many others that you can use. Edit: Competiton is not defined as same service at same price. All email services compete with each other, gmail did not kill the competition or the market they just offered the best system on one price range. You ar…
> You offered this as a response to somebody saying that google was good for the market, but they clearly were. Look. If I have a measurably worse email system, and email is a central part of workflow in my industry, then I am not able to compete as well as those who have measurably better email systems. You could argue that there are equally good email systems, or that there's no possible reason that I could possibl…
"If I have a mesurably worse Ice Cream Delivery Guy, and Ice Cream is a central my marketing stratigy, then I am not able to compet as well as those who have measurably better Ice Cream Delivery guys."
What you take issue with is simple that you happen to not like on aspect of a service and your complaining about it. Your critic is basiclly a critc on markets as such, if that is what you are doing then say so, if not stop repeating that the world is unfair, nobody said it was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm starting to get interested in wiring my neighborhood (the best current option is 6mb during the day and ~0.5mb in the evenings.) Are there any resources you could send me on what it would take to wire up a small area?
I could talk about this for hours... But really, it's quite a bit of work and really specific to your area. Since you're looking to do a small area, you probably won't have enough capital to bury fiber which is a shame because that's when you start getting the biggest bang for the buck. There's a couple different angles you need to assess. Politics/Bureaucrats -- what laws are in place to prevent you from deploying i…
I suspect I'm going to have to do copper on poles to make it viable, but how do I find out who owns the poles and what they charge?
Also I don't have any idea how to go about purchasing upstream bandwidth - any advice there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could talk about this for hours... But really, it's quite a bit of work and really specific to your area. Since you're looking to do a small area, you probably won't have enough capital to bury fiber which is a shame because that's when you start getting the biggest bang for the buck. There's a couple different angles you need to assess. Politics/Bureaucrats -- what laws are in place to prevent you from deploying i…
Thanks! (And sorry it took me a while to respond.) In my case, I'm outside of city limits, so that should help with the politics. I suspect I'm going to have to do copper on poles to make it viable, but how do I find out who owns the poles and what they charge? Also I don't have any idea how to go about purchasing upstream bandwidth - any advice there?
That's where a lot of leg work comes in. You'll have to start asking the city who owns them. I started by emailing the first person who sounded like they had the title of "secretary". It took about 5 emails getting batted around before I found out.
> Also I don't have any idea how to go about purchasing upstream bandwidth - any advice there?
Again, this is the leg work on your part. Do all the research you can and figure out who has fiber running nearby. You're going to have to tap into that for service. If it's the provider you go with who owns it then you won't have a seperate dark fiber leasing cost. CenturyLink, AT&T, XO, TW Telecom, Layer3, Qwest (many of these have merged together, but they sometimes use older names when referring to circuits -- so a qwest circuit might be running nearby but you'd go through centurylink to get it) will all be more than happy to take your money, but most of the backbone providers probably won't return your phone calls if you're not talking about 100G connections.
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.
I'm sure I don't have access to your specific provider, but what kind of service is that? I've been looking to go cheap, all I really need is decent latency.
I'm not sure what you count as decent latency, but I don't believe there's any difference in latency between different TWC internet plans.