how-to block ads
reply to S1R1US
Re: Google Fiber Actually I think it's not because they are simply doing it naturally, they are doing it out of fear.
When you think about competition, you think about the future, and Google's future with fiberhoods is extremely scary for corporate ISPs.
Google has a ton of knowledge and fundings to do anything they feel like, while it seems like a bad thing from a biased point of view, has Google once did something morally wrong, but NOT in the scope of human bias?
Sure there were privacy issues, but privacy laws and bias were STARTED by humans. Did Google did some sort of crime against nature? Probably not.
By not taking heed of other people's bias, Google is immune to the stupidity that is privacy laws and bias.
Even then, people want privacy laws on the internet for the sake of protecting themselves, when the internet is like the real world... No one is going to stop someone who is aiming a sniper rifle at your face because it'll be too late then. If something ends up happening, it will happen, and you cannot prevent it, just react to it.
So as a result, the laws are designed to punish or reap from the bias.
My last post was in response to daddyg_76266's suggestion that 1.5/386k should be $5/month.
I have no issue with Google Fiber, and in fact openly embrace it. I think my opinions relate to nationwide expectations of consumers changing because of what Google's offering. I think it's selfish view. Just because something is one speed or one price in a certain place, doesn't mean it should or can be the new standard for other providers to follow everywhere else. If 99% of providers offered 1.5/386k for free, it doesn't make the 1% charging whatever they charge any less worth it. It simply means in certain places with certain companies there are different offerings. Frequently there are trade-offs. Not always though. I'm just saying it's a bit ridiculous to suggest 24/7 internet access for the low-tier speed should be the price of a McDonald's combo meal.