4 ms·
"That free tier? That is outright illegal and its sole purpose is to eradicate all competition." Why don't we sue Google for providing free WiFi in Mountain Vi
by neurotech1 14y ago
"That free tier? That is outright illegal and its sole purpose is to eradicate all competition."
Why don't we sue Google for providing free WiFi in Mountain View? And Google Fiber isn't free - its $300 to cover the equipment costs. I'm pretty that 12 months of basic DSL for less than $300 anyway, installation included. Some neighbors will "freely" share their internet, should incumbent cable co sue them aswell for unfair competition?
What is to stop a cable co "recycling" old equipment to provide basic freemium internet to people who don't want to pay more for premimum plans.
The unfairness of having all that equipment already owned and built out... somebody stop them... oh wait what is Google doing?
- ttran4 14y agoGoogle provides free WiFi in Mountain View? I didn't know that. I worked at multiple buildings on Salado Dr. and a year at Marine Wy. I get no signal if I park across the street.
- gergles 14y agoIt's only in the downtown core, and you have to sign in to a Google Account (and agree to god-knows-what in the way of tracking of your use.)
- drcube 14y agoYeah, I wouldn't consider $300 up front "free". It's an amortized price, similar to XM Radio's $400 lifetime subscription fee. Frankly, I'd like to see more amortized pricing like this.
- notaddicted 14y agoI'm cynical about this kind of pricing. Once you've paid up, in the companies' books you're in the minus column until the end of time. Incentives are no longer aligned. Combine this with the way that telcos treat regular paying customers ... I wouldn't like to put myself in that position, even with a company that tries to be aggressively benevolent.
- praxulus 14y agoJust about every single person who uses the internet in any way is in Google's positive column. They might not be a positive for the Fiber division alone, but given where the vast majority of Google's income comes from, Fiber will have a lot of pressure to keep customers happy.
- gddr 14y agoIt's funny, because in my (shitty) country, we have a "communications industry regulator" that basically does only this: sue people who give free internet. Well I get 30Mbps for less than 40€/month, so I can't complain I guess...
- splicer 14y agoI pay $50 Canadian per month for a 2.1 Mbps connection :(
- leot 14y agoCanadian telcos seem to be universally worse than their US brethren, as they appear to be aided and abetted by a corrupt CRTC (Canadian FCC). Witness the CRTCs approval of bandwidth caps in order to delay/prevent users from moving to internet-only plans and using Netflix for their entertainment. [http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/15/crtc-ubb-ruling_n_1095760.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/15/crtc-ubb-ruling_n_10...]
- noarchy 14y agoI'm fortunate to be using a Teksavvy connection with no caps. However, they're still running on Videotron's equipment, meaning I'm still paying Videotron-like prices for cable internet. Teksavvy's Ontario rates appear to be cheaper for exactly the same speed tier. Overall, the CRTC is less interested in competition, and much more interested in serving the interest of the established telcos (Rogers, Bell, etc). They seem especially afraid of foreign competition; witness what happened initially with Wind Mobile's efforts to break into the market.
- splicer 14y agoI'm using Teksavvy as well, but they're using Bell's ADSL on a really noisy line. I can't get cable from Teksavvy in my building.
- 14y ago