[GRLUG] NOT LINUX

[Bob Kline]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:39 PM, John-Thomas Richards <jtr at jrichards.org>wrote:

> On Mon Sep 10 2012 11:43:47 AM EDT, Bob Kline <bob.kline at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > September 13. For $70 per month, residents can get Gigabit Internet, and
> > for $120 per month, they can get Gigabit Internet service plus TV.
> > There's even a "free" Internet tier with 5Mbps down and 1Mbps up. The
> > free tier requires a one-time construction fee of $300 or 12 monthly
> > payments of $25, but Google guarantees the free service for seven years.
> > **
> >
> > About the same price the rest of
> > us pay for about 3% of that bandwidth.
> >
> > I wonder where Google with go with
> > this next?   i.e., if that $70 represents
> > a true service price, I'd think the door
> > would be open to many other cities,
> > on the way to creating Google Net.
> >
> > Even that "free" service works out to
> > about $45 a year, or less if Google
> > extends it.
>
> Google's primary business is selling ads.  To sell ads more effectively
> they try to know as much about you as possible.  Would you really want them
> being able to see *all* of you data traffic?  This is a real conflict of
> interest (if you believe in the principles of net-neutrality).
>
>
Comcast owns NBC now, and has already
been slapped for interfering with cable data content.
The use of BitTorrent if I remember correctly.
Time-Werner also owned, or owns, a cable
company. M$ recently had its bippy slapped
in Europe for stalling about making one's
browser selectable.

I believe you're correct in saying that this
is all a net neutrality issue, and is exactly
why Google decided to try to put in another
network. Any one of these things could
disrupt it's own revenue stream.  If it can
offer 1Gbps for $70 a month and make
money, it also shoots holes in most of the
offerings from other ISPs.  I'm not sure why
it considers Kansas an experiment, but if
all goes well I'd think people would be
beating the doors down for it. Most other
outfits are trying to squeeze more revenue
out of their old physical plant rather than
add new capacity, by dragging their feet
on bandwidth, having monthly byte limits,
and whatever else you've got. Verizon
has the only other major fiber operation,
but seems to have turned down the heat
on new installation, even while its existing
fiber system is very highly rated in CR.

IMHO Google seems to feel that the only
way to protect its own interests is to have
its own network, and events seem to be
proving it right.  In my experience, I'd
sooner go along with Google than most of
the other outfits.

And of course having bought Motorola,
it might have designs on branching out
in to non search areas, although M$ shows
it can be hard to be successful outside that
cushy monopoly.  But one thing at a time.
The Chromium browser has been successful
enough.

   -- Bob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://shinobu.grlug.org/pipermail/grlug/attachments/20120910/ccf65004/attachment.html>