3 ms·

> All things that Google would not get any revenue (advertising or otherwise) if they let that happen Wait, is Google Fiber free now? I'll never understand wh

by drcube 13y ago

> All things that Google would not get any revenue (advertising or otherwise) if they let that happen Wait, is Google Fiber free now? I'll never understand why ISPs can't just tell you the bandwidth you get and let you use it. If they want you to use less, don't offer more. Why is it so hard to just tell people what you want from them instead of fooling them? And how in the hell would a customer use even a tiny fraction of 1Gbs upload speed without a server? You'd think Google Fiber was run by idiots; but no, it's just assholes.

wmf 13y ago
Deceptive marketing has a ratchet effect. If ISP A advertises guaranteed 1 Mbps for $50 and ISP B advertises up to 20 Mbps for $50 (in reality both are providing exactly the same service), then ISP A has no choice but to change their marketing if they want to stay in business. It's the same thing we saw with "4G"; once Sprint started advertising 4 Mbps WiMax as "4G" then T-Mobile and AT&T had to call their 7 Mbps HSPA "4G" too.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  "4G" doesn't actually mean anything. "20 Mbps" means something specific. If you advertise "20 Mbps" then you should be providing twenty megabits per second. If you don't actually want to provide that then you can call it 20 Mbps burst or what have you, but one way or another you need to be providing what you're selling. The real problem is the lack of accountability. If the first company to advertise 20 Mbps without actually providing 20 Mbps was held accountable to the offer then everything would be fine: The users who want to use 20Mbps sustained 24/7 for the whole month would be attracted to that service, the provider would have to set the price at a sustainable level or go out of business, the market works. It's the fact that we allow them to get away with offering something they aren't actually selling that creates the problem to begin with.

by drcube 13y ago

wmf 13y ago

Deceptive marketing has a ratchet effect. If ISP A advertises guaranteed 1 Mbps for $50 and ISP B advertises up to 20 Mbps for $50 (in reality both are providing exactly the same service), then ISP A has no choice but to change their marketing if they want to stay in business. It's the same thing we saw with "4G"; once Sprint started advertising 4 Mbps WiMax as "4G" then T-Mobile and AT&T had to call their 7 Mbps HSPA "4G" too.

AnthonyMouse 13y ago
"4G" doesn't actually mean anything. "20 Mbps" means something specific. If you advertise "20 Mbps" then you should be providing twenty megabits per second. If you don't actually want to provide that then you can call it 20 Mbps burst or what have you, but one way or another you need to be providing what you're selling. The real problem is the lack of accountability. If the first company to advertise 20 Mbps without actually providing 20 Mbps was held accountable to the offer then everything would be fine: The users who want to use 20Mbps sustained 24/7 for the whole month would be attracted to that service, the provider would have to set the price at a sustainable level or go out of business, the market works. It's the fact that we allow them to get away with offering something they aren't actually selling that creates the problem to begin with.