| Wonder how much all of this costs Verizon's FiOS has a fraction of these features and claims to cost quite a bit per home passed. I wonder what this will cost and I wonder if Google is selling the service as a loss leader and using advertising to make up the difference? |
|
|
|
| Think Data Mining and selling your info! |
|
| »fiber.google.com/plans/residential/ |
|
| No, I mean how much it costs THEM. |
|
| reply to fifty nine
Google doesn't expect a 43% profit margin the way Verizon gets from its wireless subs. They're quite willing to dump a free service (Android in smartphones, the 5 mbps for free with this project) for longterm growth and mindshare. Hopefully if this experiment proves successful they'll expand to other non-FIOS markets. |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by sonicmerlin: Hopefully if this experiment proves successful they'll expand to other non-FIOS markets.
Never happen. Google won't make money on this. It is pure PR BS to get their name out there as the good guy. It is an advertising campaign and nothing more.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care |
|
 dib22
join:2002-01-27
Kansas City, MO | said by Linklist:Never happen. Google won't make money on this. It is pure PR BS to get their name out there as the good guy. It is an advertising campaign and nothing more.
Awww... well if CableTelcoUSA returns to a fair pricing model then google will stop with KC, if not... |
|
 coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
 ·Windstream
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:said by sonicmerlin: Hopefully if this experiment proves successful they'll expand to other non-FIOS markets.
Never happen. Google won't make money on this. It is pure PR BS to get their name out there as the good guy. It is an advertising campaign and nothing more. And this is different from typical incumbent provider nonsense...how?
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC |
|
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:said by sonicmerlin: Hopefully if this experiment proves successful they'll expand to other non-FIOS markets.
Never happen. Google won't make money on this. It is pure PR BS to get their name out there as the good guy. It is an advertising campaign and nothing more. You are pretty bitter about this it seems. Major Debbe Downer. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:Google doesn't expect a 43% profit margin the way Verizon gets from its wireless subs. They're quite willing to dump a free service (Android in smartphones, the 5 mbps for free with this project) for longterm growth and mindshare.
The service is not free. It costs $300.
Not a bad deal.
But not free. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to Linklist
Google gets a lot of money from data mining with its search engine alone, being the whole isp and getting to mine everything yeah theres money there. Not a typical isp strategy but it should work for google. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to Linklist
What are they advertising? |
|
 firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | reply to coldmoon
said by coldmoon:said by Linklist:said by sonicmerlin: Hopefully if this experiment proves successful they'll expand to other non-FIOS markets.
Never happen. Google won't make money on this. It is pure PR BS to get their name out there as the good guy. It is an advertising campaign and nothing more. And this is different from typical incumbent provider nonsense...how? Funny stuff. Pro business people apparently only like the ones that skimp on infrastructure and squeeze out more dollars without always paying the bills.
If google pays all costs, marks some money for build out, and has exactly one penny or more leftover it seems like a very successful project. All the arm chair CEO's and economists who want cheap products and shoddy infrastructure while making piles of cash to give out to good old boy types are what drives this countries people towards the bottom.
--
Say no to astroturfing. actions > Ignore Author |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:What are they advertising?
Their advertising business which accounts for the majority of their income and all of their profits.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care |
|
| reply to elray
it's basically free. Charging $300 for a $3000 service (over 7 years) is a giveaway. Just depends on your perspective. |
|
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| reply to firephoto
said by firephoto:Funny stuff. Pro business people apparently only like the ones that skimp on infrastructure and squeeze out more dollars without always paying the bills.
If google pays all costs, marks some money for build out, and has exactly one penny or more leftover it seems like a very successful project. Sorry, that's not how business works. Your example is only valid if there was no other product Google could have invested their time and money into. Google has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to invest its time and money into projects that net the highest possible profit margin.
As an example, Verizon isn't abandoning wireline because it isn't profitable. They are abandoning it because wireless is more profitable. Building out the LTE network is simply a better use of capital than building out the wireline network. This calculation may well change once the wireless network and market fully matures but for the time being it would be fiduciary negligence for them to invest their limited resources into a product with a lower ROI than wireless.
Getting back to the original point, I'm not sure what Google's long term goal is here. At their core they are a content and advertising company; I doubt they are willing to get into the last mile business on a nationwide scale. That would make as much sense as Verizon going into the search engine business or ExxonMobile trying to compete with McDonalds. |
|
| Most profitable? Shouldn't they get out of the internet business and sell hookers and blow instead? |
|
| reply to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:said by firephoto:Funny stuff. Pro business people apparently only like the ones that skimp on infrastructure and squeeze out more dollars without always paying the bills.
If google pays all costs, marks some money for build out, and has exactly one penny or more leftover it seems like a very successful project. Sorry, that's not how business works. Your example is only valid if there was no other product Google could have invested their time and money into. Google has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to invest its time and money into projects that net the highest possible profit margin. As an example, Verizon isn't abandoning wireline because it isn't profitable. They are abandoning it because wireless is more profitable. Building out the LTE network is simply a better use of capital than building out the wireline network. This calculation may well change once the wireless network and market fully matures but for the time being it would be fiduciary negligence for them to invest their limited resources into a product with a lower ROI than wireless. Getting back to the original point, I'm not sure what Google's long term goal is here. At their core they are a content and advertising company; I doubt they are willing to get into the last mile business on a nationwide scale. That would make as much sense as Verizon going into the search engine business or ExxonMobile trying to compete with McDonalds. agreed companies have a obligation to stockholders.. I think google is showing the president, and sen/house why we need it, weather the cable companies like it or not fiber is the future and we all know this.. cable cant even get 50 mbps up for crying out loud, and it starting to show that they over charge big time for their tv services people are smarting up and seeing what the internet can do for them, I think in 10 years or less we will start to see fiber running threw major states (and it wont be provided by the likes of AT&T or cable co. but possibly the gov which seems to keep on spending at this point and time.. I could be wrong and this could be just my speculation) still none the less cable and AT&T, Verizon will have their day when they will loose to fiber
as shown on the video 1000mbps almost.., they where able to upload everything 10x faster or more.. upload is starting to become a major thing in the internet with more and more cloud idk if the cable co's will actually go for it (Comcast will, but the smaller ones like suddenlink, my provider, its seems they wont mess with it) |
|
| reply to sparc
said by sparc:it's basically free. Charging $300 for a $3000 service (over 7 years) is a giveaway. Just depends on your perspective.
very true.., 300 is small price to pay though.. and that's just one time fee.. I wonder what timewarner will do hahahahahha |
|
firephotoFacts hurtPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA | reply to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:Sorry, that's not how business works. Your example is only valid if there was no other product Google could have invested their time and money into. Google has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to invest its time and money into projects that net the highest possible profit margin.
They have a responsibility to their majority shareholders. Everyone else can come or go as they please with their minor investments.
There is a very limited number of people at the top of Google with full control of the investment into the company, everyone else is just along for the ride.
--
Say no to astroturfing. actions > Ignore Author |
|
