dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2
share rss forum feed

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to ltecajun

Re: deal or no deal?

LOL, another one of those 1gbps is overkill guys.

First, you do realize more than one person, service, application and appliance can use the internet at on time right?

Second, lets look at the shear short sided view of your silly comment.
- In 1994 dialup was pretty much the only thing any body needed and I am sure there were morons then too that claimed 28.8 modems were plenty.
- Innovation doesnt happen when you dont have the room to innovate
- Innovation is very slow to happen when you lack the drive to do so.
- What you may see as too much, other may see as not enough.
- The quicker you get someone on the network and off the network the more time they save and the less resources of the network are being used as a whole.

Some nutbags here will claim that 1gbps is just way too much and yet say that a company making a profit of $3+ billion every quarter or a person being worth $100's of millions is not too much. What could they possibly do with all that money? Shouldnt they be required to turn it over to the Federal Reserve and have their salaries greatly cut? Surely they are one in the same.

One last thing..... I am sure if Google did this and only offered the services that matched TW and/or AT&T and did it at the same price not a single one of you corporate pony riders would be here complaining. But of course, since Google makes your companies look like the AOL's of last century you come here whining and complaining and making the only argument you can... "it just isnt needed". Which is quite entertaining and quite revealing by the way.


ltecajun

join:2012-10-02
Rayne, LA

Seriously.... Is that your argument? I sit near the most connected city in the US and have had discussions with friends who have LUS fiber service and when asked about their usage habits they all advise that their average usage rate over any given period is much lower than 100mbps. Closer to 30-50Mbps dependent on what legal content is being viewed or downloaded.

Personally, I am not complaining that Google is trying to provide a service that does in some instances drive innovation. What I am complaining about is Google (which does happen to be a fairly large corporation) ultimately ends up leaving people with failed promises in everything they do and ultimately will make profit via the selling of a person's privacy.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

I like your conjured statement of Google ultimately leaving people with failed promises. Google has brought much good to many markets beyond this and the fact we are here discussing this shows they have brought good to even this.

How you selectively pick Google out of this bunch is quite entertaining being that TW and AT&T, along with all the other incumbent providers have made "failed promises yet reaping the rewards" an art form.

So some come here preaching fairness and the lack of need for it from Google, but support the lack of fairness that brought Google here to begin with.

You want fairness? How about TW and AT&T are not allowed to service either city in anyway for 10-15 years while Google creates their network and builds their captured marketplace. Or how about Google takes billions to build the wired networks from local and federal subsidies and then uses it to build a competing nationwide wireless network instead. Or how about Google gets to purchase TV channels and selectively provide them, after of course they get their market captured. Bottom line no matter how you spin it - They had their chance (even with their incentives) and failed or Google wouldnt even be there. You claiming 1gbps is not needed is no more valid then me claiming you dont need to make more than $70k a year. So shut it.


ltecajun

join:2012-10-02
Rayne, LA

Provide facts of Google bringing much good to many markets? Oh! Wait. My android... You are right. Next?


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 recommendation

reply to Skippy25

Google being there has nothing to do with their supposed "failure". It has to do with Google getting good perks from Kansas City, the size of the city, and the layout of the city so they can easily build, so they can conduct their experiment. Hate to break it to you, but Google is not there so consumers can get a third choice and be saved from these evil companies. They are not the savior you make them out to be.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to ltecajun

So out of all of my message that is all you come up with?

Obviously you are admitting defeat and Android within itself is all I would need to say being it touches on so many other markets. Android alone helped to improve the entire mobile phone market or are you going to argue with that and demand proof?

Please tell -
How did you pick Google out of the bunch in failed promises to deliver when they are the only ones that have never failed to deliver on broadband out of the group?

Also, please provide proof (thought I would ask first) that the incumbents have not failed and did not get incentives for the last decade or 2 to improve their networks. HINT: You will need to come up with something creative here being the entire fact Google is there shows they failed. (Good luck!)

Lastly, please provide proof that Google entering these markets is NOT a good thing for the communities. Again, I thought I would ask first being you like to play this silly game.

I really dont expect a reply from you being that you will fail to live up to the challenge, but none the less it has been fun playing hasnt it?


ltecajun

join:2012-10-02
Rayne, LA

Yeah! Go drink your Google cool-aid and let's continue this debate in a couple of years. Again what has Google provided that is worth a damn outside of Android which just recently has reached a point that truly is usable as a mobile OS. *crickets* I thought so. This should have been a Non-Corporate funded and built network to begin with to truly be successful. Now I understand the Liberal thinking that these companies have been taken in funds for a very long time, but that is the past. Even the new muni projects require some form of tax payer funding to eventually make it off the ground where they are profitable and sustainable.


ltecajun

join:2012-10-02
Rayne, LA

By the way... This is the link to the LUS Fiber pricing for their services. Completely funded via Bonds.
»www.lusfiber.com/index.php/inter···ng-guide


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to ltecajun

Lets assume just for a moment that Google has done no good beyond Android and you win that one argument being that is really irrelevant to this project.

Where are your answers to my other questions? *crickets*

And I know how LUS was funded. It was funded the way a muni should be if a private company has failed to deliver what the community wants and is unwilling to serve it as such. It was approved by the people and will be paid for by the people.


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to silbaco

Google being there has everything to do with their failure. If those communities had better networks then Google would not have seen them as a good test bed and would have chosen another place. Are you honestly that dense?

They certainly are not there to give a 3rd choice. They are there to show the failures of the incumbents and what can be had with an internet that goes beyond the duopolistic capture of the current market. They are there to show gigabit internet is possible and profitable with the hopes it pushes more ISP's to expand because more people will want it and the more people that are on the internet the more money Google makes over all.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Google doesn't even know if it will be profitable. They hope it will. Everyone hopes to be profitable. But will they ever earn a serious return on their investment? Seems extremely unlikely.

If non-profit muni's can't offer even close to gigabit speeds and even break even at the prices google is planning, what makes you think it is so profitable?



iano

@virginmedia.com
reply to ltecajun

Hmm, I wonder how google got so big\relevant without Android.
Maybe we should Google it and find out!


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to silbaco

Maybe you should look into how the network is being built before you come here babbling. You would look less silly then.

One other thing... being you are so network knowledgeable I am sure I am not telling you anything you dont know, but you do realize that providing 1mb or 1gb over current infrastructure has a very marginal cost, right? So if the muni's were built out with that infrastructure support they would provide it at a cost that is marginally greater than 100mb.


jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
reply to ltecajun

Oye!

What's with the **crickets** "I thought so comment"??

Too funny! You know you have to post before he can answer you.

Thanks for providing my daily entertainment!


jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
reply to ltecajun

Much better than TWC or at&t! Faster speeds too! Looks great!


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to Skippy25

Really? Because you are such an expert on the network google is building. Why don't you just explain it to me since I clearly don't know.

Marginal? That's not the word I would use for it. Considering "current" infrastructure as you said is incapable of providing gigabit. You have to design the whole network from the ground up to prevent bottlenecks. Most of the hardware they are deploying is not capable of those speeds. And you seem to be forgetting about costs of the upstream provider. You think they will sell muni's massive pipes for pennies? I already know that's not the case.