|reply to Skippy25 |
Re: deal or no deal?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.