2 ms·

But by the same logic, you can't pass on 100% of profit to the workers without losing spending flexibility and the ability to reinvest in the company's infrastr

But by the same logic, you can't pass on 100% of profit to the workers without losing spending flexibility and the ability to reinvest in the company's infrastructure and future prosperity. No one complains that Google Fiber doesn't serve every neighborhood in the cities where it is established. Google negotiated that deal with the cities, and if a city refuses to let them target only specific, profitable neighborhoods, they simply take that city off the list. In my opinion, this whole situation is emblematic of why American digital infrastructure is slow and behind the times, because of antiquated and senseless rules. I don't think Verizon is some kind of nice company; they're reprehensible at times and frankly I feel sorry for the people working there and I kind of understand their anger. But, business is business.

mikeash 11y ago
A failure to serve poor neighborhoods actually is a criticism people have of Google Fiber (search for "google fiber digital divide" for examples), and it's something they attempt to combat by providing free service to libraries, community centers, and low-income housing in some places. I do think that trying to shame or regulate companies into serving unprofitable areas is the wrong way to go about it. If it's that important, then subsidize service in those areas so it's actually profitable. But Americans seem to hate obvious subsidies, and prefer to make them weird and convoluted instead.
- Retric 11y ago
  The problem is it is generally profitable, just less profitable. Worse we are subsidizing them, but if they finish the subsides end and none of the subsides where directly tied to actually deploying new fiber to every home. PS: You get a lot of very different numbers out there. But remember at 10 acres per house you get 64 houses per square mile and people tend to clump near roads and in towns. http://blog.performantnetworks.com/2012/11/how-much-does-rural-fiber-really-cost.html http://blog.performantnetworks.com/2012/11/how-much-does-rur... Sure, there are a few places where it's still unprofitable, but we can debate the last 1/2th of a percent of homes when you get close to 99%.

mikeash 11y ago

A failure to serve poor neighborhoods actually is a criticism people have of Google Fiber (search for "google fiber digital divide" for examples), and it's something they attempt to combat by providing free service to libraries, community centers, and low-income housing in some places. I do think that trying to shame or regulate companies into serving unprofitable areas is the wrong way to go about it. If it's that important, then subsidize service in those areas so it's actually profitable. But Americans seem to hate obvious subsidies, and prefer to make them weird and convoluted instead.

Retric 11y ago
The problem is it is generally profitable, just less profitable. Worse we are subsidizing them, but if they finish the subsides end and none of the subsides where directly tied to actually deploying new fiber to every home. PS: You get a lot of very different numbers out there. But remember at 10 acres per house you get 64 houses per square mile and people tend to clump near roads and in towns. http://blog.performantnetworks.com/2012/11/how-much-does-rural-fiber-really-cost.html http://blog.performantnetworks.com/2012/11/how-much-does-rur... Sure, there are a few places where it's still unprofitable, but we can debate the last 1/2th of a percent of homes when you get close to 99%.