2 ms·

> If Google enters a market to provide a better service, Comcast et al. can easily pretty much flip a switch in that market to start providing a better service

> If Google enters a market to provide a better service, Comcast et al. can easily pretty much flip a switch in that market to start providing a better service to hold onto their disgruntled customers, depriving Google of much of the market it needed to make Fiber profitable. This is why the pure libertarian ideas about a completely free market just don't work for some services. It is a complete waste of human and material capital to run more than two last-mile networks (the second for redundancy and you could argue that is also a waste). When you've got more than 4-5 you simply can't ever make a return on investment. The physical last mile should be separated from the rest of the business and managed by a public benefit or non-profit. It works just fine for electricity choice in states like Texas. We already know the physical fiber can carry 100GB, probably a lot more. The infrastructure would be suitable for at least the next 100 years. Leave ONT and central office equipment up to individual vendors who want to offer service, which gives them the maximum ability to compete on provisioning, backhaul, customer service, and features. If you want to object that it is government regulation ruining the free market... well I have news for you: a completely free market has never existed. Ever. In the history of the world. People use social connections, money, and power to stifle competitors. They've been finding creative ways to do that for thousands of years. To pretend that a limited and weak government will be able to exert any control over huge multinational corporations is laughable. Even Uber and AirBnB had to use social pressure to force through changes.

Akkuma 10y ago
>This is why the pure libertarian ideas about a completely free market just don't work for some services. It is a complete waste of human and material capital to run more than two last-mile networks (the second for redundancy and you could argue that is also a waste). When you've got more than 4-5 you simply can't ever make a return on investment. If the current environment is preventing any and all business from flourishing, in this specific case Google Fiber, this is arguably even more wasteful. There is nothing getting done instead of something getting done. The political & regulatory maneuvering probably costs nearly as much for Google Fiber would as building out more redundant infrastructure. Plus, their business model may have required a large amount of users to really make the business worthwhile, so they wind up in this situation where they can't expand fast enough.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
briffle 10y ago
To me, the ideal setup is a single entity, whether govt, coop, or nonprofit, to run the 'last mile' to the homes as a utility (gpon or something similar). then let ISP's, telcos, etc run their fiber to the CO, and provide internet, TV, and voice. A bill gets split up, and the utility gets a small percentage for maintenance, repairs, on-site troubleshooting, and upgrades. ISP's no longer need a fleet of techs, and just need to worry about core infrastructure. Competition thrives, as you note just need to connect to a CO to start competing, etc. Actually very similar to how many rural power co-op's with now. Since the utility is small and local, you can actually talk to them about concerns, etc.

Akkuma 10y ago

>This is why the pure libertarian ideas about a completely free market just don't work for some services. It is a complete waste of human and material capital to run more than two last-mile networks (the second for redundancy and you could argue that is also a waste). When you've got more than 4-5 you simply can't ever make a return on investment. If the current environment is preventing any and all business from flourishing, in this specific case Google Fiber, this is arguably even more wasteful. There is nothing getting done instead of something getting done. The political & regulatory maneuvering probably costs nearly as much for Google Fiber would as building out more redundant infrastructure. Plus, their business model may have required a large amount of users to really make the business worthwhile, so they wind up in this situation where they can't expand fast enough.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

briffle 10y ago

To me, the ideal setup is a single entity, whether govt, coop, or nonprofit, to run the 'last mile' to the homes as a utility (gpon or something similar). then let ISP's, telcos, etc run their fiber to the CO, and provide internet, TV, and voice. A bill gets split up, and the utility gets a small percentage for maintenance, repairs, on-site troubleshooting, and upgrades. ISP's no longer need a fleet of techs, and just need to worry about core infrastructure. Competition thrives, as you note just need to connect to a CO to start competing, etc. Actually very similar to how many rural power co-op's with now. Since the utility is small and local, you can actually talk to them about concerns, etc.