reply to jjeffeory
Re: Kansas City ISPs want same deal KC gave Google Google hasn't provided anything yet, where the city provided and guaranteed those advantages to Google in advance.
Hardly a level playing field. also At&T( and probably TWC do to franchise requirements) has the burden of serving EVERY house, on demand rather than being able to cherry pick ONLY those that pay in advance and agree to be installed during googles flash build schedule.
Face it, these rules are VERY different then when At&t and TWC built out.
That may not be a bad thing, but it does show yet another cost shift from the privately owned network onto the public without any ownership rights.
In fact Google only said their service would be cost competitive with existing services until the recent price announcements, so google COULD have said the were going to charge $100's more.
The cities had no legal way of knowing that all their freebies would be repaid.
It's not hating google to say the city gov't appears to have acted in capricious and irresponsible manner towards their fiduciary duty to the citizens.
And those of you not totally enamored of Google, might recognize this if in each place above it says Google, instead you subsituted say, Lightsquared...would you then feel so good about each of the cities actions in response to the vague promises that LS (as above) made? Or perhaps the promises were stronger in the backroom deals it took to only have learned about these conditions and concessions made to please LightSquared?
Those of you who complain thread after thread about the Corp./Gov't conspirisies secret handshakes and bribies
yet choose to ignore this, most obvious example just because you TRUST Google to "do no evil" and imagine they are doing something you want for your benefit are in serious denial.