3 ms·

> I don't know why you are twisting the story around, but I'm not inclined to trust you or your data, or your arguments anymore. Uh. I'm not twisting anything,

> I don't know why you are twisting the story around, but I'm not inclined to trust you or your data, or your arguments anymore. Uh. I'm not twisting anything, bro. My information came from the International Business Times article that I linked to earlier. I also expect that you haven't read the franchise agreement entered into by Provo and Google [0] or the Fiber Lease agreement [1] or the Asset Purchase agreement [2] or the Network Services agreement. [3] If we read through those (and I strongly encourage you to do so), we discover that the only thing that the International Business Times got wrong was the claim that Google was going to be taking on the financial liabilities of Veracity Networks LLC (the previous company that was in charge of running, managing, and maintaining iProvo) [4]. I could see why they mixed that up... the language in the Excluded Assets section is slightly tortured. > A serious offer would have had other ISPs at the table to counter-bid against Google. Are you basing this on more than just the single complaint from CenturyLink? Look. Google has proven that they're both able to and serious about deploying gigabit municipal networks and pricing access to those networks at a rate that kicks the shit out of anything any other commercial ISP offers. Read the official agreements. You'll see that they're all bog-standard. Actually dig in to Google Fiber's performance and track record (rather than just skimming the froth from some pundit's clickbait). Do some research and discover that what Google is doing today should have been done in the mid 1990's [5], except nationwide. Most of the entities who are scrambling to counter or stop Google (and -generally- municipally-operated fiber) now are the ones who reneged on those promises decades ago. (But were more than happy to retain the incentives and tax breaks.) Another thing. Remember the fact that iProvo was sold to another private company five years before Veracity and Provo decided to let Google Fiber manage, maintain, and upgrade iProvo. [6] In your opinion, how does this situation [7] compare to a city changing the specialist company to whom they contract out power plant operation and maintenance? :) [0] http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2298 http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2298 [1] http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2300 http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2300 [2] http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2296 http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2296 [3] http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2304 http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2304 [4] I bet you weren't aware that there was a commercial entity running Provo's network before Google Fiber came in. ;) [5] Albeit at 40->100mbit symmetric. [6] http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/51766375-78/veracity-iprovo-network-default.html.csp http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/5176637... [7] Namely, Provo switching the manager, maintainer, and upgrader of iProvo from Veracity Networks to Google Fiber.

dragontamer 11y ago
Dude, we're looking at a deal where a city gave away MILLIONs of dollars worth of fiber cable away to a private company for $1. The city of Provo spent roughly $39 MILLION on building out their local, municipal fiber. And then they gave the network away to Google. > You'll see that they're all bog-standard. There is nothing standard about giving away MILLIONS OF DOLLARS worth of fiber away for $1. The only thing "standard" about this, is that Google, a for-profit company, accepted the deal. Obviously, because gaining a huge amount of infrastructure, debt-free for a single dollar is massively beneficial to a company with loads of capital, and allows Google to expand into the ISP space. > Another thing. Remember the fact that iProvo was sold to another private company five years before Veracity and Provo decided to let Google Fiber manage, maintain, and upgrade iProvo. [6] In your opinion, how does this situation [7] compare to a city changing the specialist company to whom they contract out power plant operation and maintenance? Simple. Broadweave actually paid more than $1 for the deal. Much less fishy. In fact, Broadweave (later Veracity) paid a total of $40 Million on the deal. Still fishy of course: Broadweave's debt was owned by the city of Provo, which is how Provo got into the mess in 2013 where they are still paying for the fiber they gave away to Google for $1. As far as I can tell, the city is just incompetent and grossly underestimates the value of their home-built network.

dragontamer 11y ago

Dude, we're looking at a deal where a city gave away MILLIONs of dollars worth of fiber cable away to a private company for $1. The city of Provo spent roughly $39 MILLION on building out their local, municipal fiber. And then they gave the network away to Google. > You'll see that they're all bog-standard. There is nothing standard about giving away MILLIONS OF DOLLARS worth of fiber away for $1. The only thing "standard" about this, is that Google, a for-profit company, accepted the deal. Obviously, because gaining a huge amount of infrastructure, debt-free for a single dollar is massively beneficial to a company with loads of capital, and allows Google to expand into the ISP space. > Another thing. Remember the fact that iProvo was sold to another private company five years before Veracity and Provo decided to let Google Fiber manage, maintain, and upgrade iProvo. [6] In your opinion, how does this situation [7] compare to a city changing the specialist company to whom they contract out power plant operation and maintenance? Simple. Broadweave actually paid more than $1 for the deal. Much less fishy. In fact, Broadweave (later Veracity) paid a total of $40 Million on the deal. Still fishy of course: Broadweave's debt was owned by the city of Provo, which is how Provo got into the mess in 2013 where they are still paying for the fiber they gave away to Google for $1. As far as I can tell, the city is just incompetent and grossly underestimates the value of their home-built network.