5 ms·

What is the contradiction here? > "net neutrality" and the implicit claim behind it, which is that all ISPs are just dumb pipes that are moving bits, and that

What is the contradiction here? > "net neutrality" and the implicit claim behind it, which is that all ISPs are just dumb pipes that are moving bits, and that consumers are agnostic about who does it This is consistent with wanting a dumb ISP that moves more bits for less money and with fewer outages. Nobody wants Goog Fibre because it comes with #"google prime video library" or whatever tie-in. They want it because it moves more bits more reliably as a big dumb pipe ought to.

nickysielicki 10y ago
That's a fair point, maybe some people don't care about the added services... but Google Fiber comes with a lot of added extras: * 1TB of Google drive * A Google-made 802.11AC WAP that doesn't suck. * Cable box has built-in chromecast and is built on top of SageTV. * Bill management through a Google website. Maybe I'm just a pessimist but I don't believe that Google put ~$100MM into Fiber simply because they wanted to be a dumb pipe and put pressure on other telecoms to compete. How do you rationalize that to shareholders? Maybe they have some people in the public convinced that they entered this market out of the goodness of their heart. But it's pretty clear to me from Fiber and from Project Fi and OnHub and NEST that they believed that they could succeed as an ISP because of the frameworks they would put around their internet services, not simply by outperforming in performance.