I like how it's not "we can compete on price", or "we can offer a better service". I mean those would be obvious lies, but still, that they don't even bother to try and promote their own services is pretty damning.
Disruption is a biatch. You have to dismiss, because it's light years better--until it really starts hurting. Then you pay off your local congress or legislature to erect artificial barriers.
In my area if you pay more than $100 for a 3-play you are a sucker. TWC just threw me a deal for $89 for a year, a free home DVR and 3 months of pay channels. Of course we have robust competition and I have FIOS. My brother who lives in a TWC-only area pays $160 for the same gig minus the whole home DVR, it would be $200/mo.
TRUE competition in open markets is better for everyone...Of course the weak companies die, but that is what should happen, not kept afloat by government regulation and protection.
I imagine if Google said Baltimore, Buffalo, Boston..I'm here Verizon wouldn't take a dump... I guess VZ doesn't like B's....
|reply to Bhruic |
I think she's saying Google is providing service at a loss. Of course the first location will cost more as they learn the business. It's a good question for Google. If they can't break even, it makes no sense to expand.
They only need to break even, to drive down competitor prices and get more people online, viewing ads.
|reply to Bhruic |
Yeah, they don't really care about the product at all, just their profits. TW could probably roll out 100/15 for half the cost of Google Fiber, but since there is no pressure they are happy to pile up the money. Now that DSL is giving up in most areas they're actually more likely to degrade service. Rolling back to 5mb/s is probably too shocking and might get government attention, but metering could be a great opportunity