3 ms·
Yes, and that's anti-competitive. I'm not arguing that AT&T was planning to build a network, but just gifting a fiber network to Google isn't exactly fair compe
by josh2600 13y ago
Yes, and that's anti-competitive. I'm not arguing that AT&T was planning to build a network, but just gifting a fiber network to Google isn't exactly fair competition.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of faster fiber as an almost universal ideal, but you can't just give google assets because they're google. That's setting a terrible precedent.
- cinquemb 13y agoWho knows, maybe it sets the precedent that government can seize assets and allocate them to other people (corperations) in the name of progress. If google blows their monopoly in x years, what's stopping them from seizing it back and giving it to someone else?
- ktsmith 13y agoThe city already sold the network once for $40 million, which didn't apply to the bond taken to build the network, and then got stuck with it again when Veracity folded. The sale to Google isn't so much a gift as it is a chance to not default on the bond (in theory) and get the service actually running. We can argue over it being anti-competitive but it doesn't appear that there were a lot of companies chomping at the bit to get this network due to the terrible state it was in.