|
cableties
Premium Member
2014-Apr-17 12:31 pm
Great pic......could also use the "Mayor"... |
|
|
|
Who played the Mayor again? Was it Kyle Mc(however you spell his last name?) from Twin Peaks/Blue Velvet?
This is awesome news. |
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
to cableties
And throw in a few Grimm characters too. |
|
|
decaywon't it be interesting over time when NY won't be the economic center of the country because greedy telecom and cable companies chose to hold hostage innovation for high (ransom) prices. |
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Apr-17 1:49 pm
said by tmc8080:...greedy telecom and cable companies... Or you could say the politicians who negotiated the franchises in those cities ( NYC, among others) were too restrictive in the terms and conditions, to permit reasonable priced innovation. You can't place all the blame on the providers for the conditions that now exist. If you read the franchise above Google now has blanket permission in Portland, but has no obligation to proceed anywhere. I wonder how closely those conditions mimick those imposed by the Telco/cableco franchises in Portland. |
|
tshirt |
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Apr-17 2:00 pm
Re: Great pic...Better throw this idiot in there too. » www.king5.com/news/crime ··· 671.html |
|
|
Which Portland?Maine or Oregon? |
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Apr-17 2:31 pm
Oregon |
|
|
JasonOD to tmc8080
Anon
2014-Apr-17 3:28 pm
to tmc8080
Re: decayAre you kidding? NYC-NJ has the most fiber and highest infrastructure $ per square mile than anywhere else. Yes, it's largely not available to individuals, but it's there.
Wall Street is a hellava drug that many companies have enjoyed and grown rich building out world leading networks. |
|
|
to tshirt
100% of ALL cost are passed on to the consumer in one way or another. A vast majority of those cost are also written off yearly for quite a large savings in taxes so the excuse that they are too restrictive to allow for reasonably priced service if they invested is silly as it is pretty much a wash at some point. |
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Apr-17 4:22 pm
said by Skippy25:100% of ALL cost are passed on to the consumer in one way or another. A vast majority of those cost are also written off yearly for quite a large savings in taxes so the excuse that they are too restrictive to allow for reasonably priced service if they invested is silly as it is pretty much a wash at some point. So Googlefiber is just wasting time requiring cities they choose to reduce those requirements and costs? Or is it you have no clue how highly restrictive operating rules prevent companies from thinking/working outside the box? And that those requirements can make it unprofitable at the low prices you imagine? |
|
fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
to tmc8080
said by tmc8080:won't it be interesting over time when NY won't be the economic center of the country because greedy telecom and cable companies chose to hold hostage innovation for high (ransom) prices. If google hasn't come to NYC, don't blame the telcos and cablecos -- blame the local politicians. By announcing deals in Austin, Provo, San Antonio and Portland, and by actually deploying fiber service in Kansas City, google has shown that it can deal with incumbent providers. What it cannot deal with, is uncooperative local politicians. What is the "ransom" that local incumbent providers are demanding for innovation? If incumbents are demanding higher prices than they should be (I agree with you on that), that is just an incentive for google to under price them. But google cannot enter a new market unless the local politicians allow it. |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
dvd536
Premium Member
2014-Apr-17 4:59 pm
nyc already has decent service. fios from VZ. |
|
|
to tshirt
No they are not. If they can lower the upfront cost then they should, but keep in mind many of the "restrictive" rules are there to protect the citizens of greedy ass corporations that would come in and do whatever they want however they want with the only certainty being that it will be cheap and easy for them for their bottom line. Not whether or not it would be the most beneficial to the citizens or consumers as it should be.
The single biggest restrictions on any of the incumbents are their shareholders. It is truly them that keep them from thinking outside the box and innovating as they should. Regardless of restrictions, there is absolutely nothing preventing them from thinking outside the box beyond shareholder fear. There are very creative people out there. The most creative take the restrictions in front of them whether it be money, regulations or even the laws of physics and they figure out how to do what needs to be done. |
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA 1 edit
1 recommendation |
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Apr-17 6:07 pm
said by Skippy25:greedy ass corporations And how does googlefiber not meet that definition in your mind? because they are pricing it low now? remember how search engine google offered really cheap ads to start? 7-10years of lowball prices mean nothing to a long term investment like Telco's and cablecos who spent the last 60 years developing the markets they have. do you really believe Google (if the actually become a major ISP player, still to be determined) isn't looking down the road at "upward price adjustments"? Shareholder' (particularly "EVIL"/wise ones) go for the money so I guarantee you Google Inc. has just as many (more actually due to the market Cap) evil overlords who will demand their ransom at the right time. |
|
|
IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA |
Too bad it ain't MaineToo bad it ain't Portland, Maine as I have a stake in real estate in the Biddeford/Saco area.
Biddeford/Saco/Old Orchard Beach is close enough to Portland (ME) that it gets all the goodies the Portland gets. It got DOCSIS 3.0 along with Portland when Time Warner finally got around to it, it got Verizon LTE when Portland did.
I would have chosen Portland, Maine as it would be less difficult to wire due to the more semi-rural nature of the area. |
|
|
petewary
Anon
2014-Apr-18 4:47 am
Google FiberHmmm,sounds like a high-priced laxative,lol. |
|
|
to IowaCowboy
Re: Too bad it ain't MaineIt seems like Google is avoiding snowy winter cities from this point on looking at list of next candidates. |
|