4 ms·

OK, but talk is cheap. You offer 100Mb service* for $115/month. Google is offering 1Gb for less than that. My local ISPs that operate on just over $10,000,00

by mkautzm 12y ago

OK, but talk is cheap. You offer 100Mb service* for $115/month. Google is offering 1Gb for less than that. My local ISPs that operate on just over $10,000,000 annually are offering double that for less than half the price to people that live in areas with population densities that'd rival the most desolate parts of Siberia. Talk is cheap. Start actually doing something. Either offer copper at prices that can compete or better yet, put your money where your mouth is. If Comcast is worried that Title II is going to decentatvie infrastructure spending, prove me wrong and actually build out a fiber infrastructure while Title II isn't a thing. Use some of that 7 billion[1] a year you see in the black and start building some real infrastructure instead of just sitting on copper for as long as you possibly can. *When it's convenient. God only knows how oversold Comcast's service is. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast

rayiner 12y ago
Holding up Google as a reference point is really disingenuous. It's not clear Google is making any money on Google Fiber, and so far they've only decided to enter a few municipalities where they've refused to agree to the sorts of regulatory constraints that Comcast is subject to in those same places. There's a real question here: could Google keep shareholders happy if Fiber was a standalone business?
- mkautzm 12y ago
  > There's a real question here: could Google keep shareholders happy if Fiber was a standalone business? This right here is a really good reason why Internet service needs to be Title II'd. If the primary concern surrounding what is now an incredibly vital piece of the communications infrastructure is, 'how do we keep shareholders happy', then our priorities are fucked.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - tptacek 12y ago
    The primary concern of trucking and air transport concerns are also shareholder welfare. Should we nationalize transportation?
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      Or highways?
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      The same could also be said of just about every grocery store. Even small mom-and-pop stores (or perhaps especially them) are concerned with shareholder welfare, more so than "What will happen if Ted runs out of pickles this week?".
      - tptacek 12y ago
        Regional pickle shortages probably aren't going to have the same effect on the economy as a nationwide trucking strike. :)
        tedunangst 12y ago
        Well, food in general. It doesn't get much more basic need than food, but there's not much government regulation guaranteeing my right to buy food.
- arebop 12y ago
  Not really. Your question is reasonable, but the real point here is that Comcast is not remotely competitive with Google Fiber. If Google Fiber were a loss leader or otherwise levitated by Google, then this would be a disingenuous comparison. But we know that Fiber is not operated at a loss [http://gigaom.com/2012/07/26/the-economics-of-google-fiber-and-what-it-means-for-u-s-broadband/ http://gigaom.com/2012/07/26/the-economics-of-google-fiber-a...]. So it may be the most profitable part of Google's business, or it may earn as little as $0 profit, which is roughly what you'd expect in a perfectly competitive commodity market. In any case, we can clearly see that Comcast is not serving consumers as well as possible.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Having a profitability above zero doesn't mean much. Nobody is going to invest billions a year in a telecom network to not make any money on it. The fact that Google can do it in a handful of markets selected for their willingness to grant massive regulatory concessions,[1] doesn't meant that they could deliver that service at that price if they had to operate at the scale Comcast does, with the regulatory constraints Comcast is subject to, and with the need to please shareholders without leaning on cloud services synergy. [1] This issue is important but underappreciated here on HN. Uptake rate is a key driver for the cost/benefit analysis of investing in telecom infrastructure. The cost of building out to a neighborhood dominates the cost term. So how many people in each neighborhood sign up has a huge impact on your per user cost. Google only builds out to fiberhoods with demonstrated interest. In most cities, Comcast is legally prevented from doing this.
tzs 12y ago
I'm reminded of some dialog from an old TV show. I think it was "I Love Lucy", but I'm not sure. It went something like this: (Lucy is buying a pound of steak from the butcher shop. Note this was set in the 1950's, so food is considerably cheaper than it is now) Butcher: that will be $0.85, please Lucy: $0.85!? Bob's Butcher down the street sells steak for $0.55 per pound! Butcher: then go buy your steak from Bob's. Lucy: I would, but Bob's is out of steak. Butcher: Lady, when I'm out of steak, I'll sell it for $0.50 per pound! For all but less than a handful of places, Google Fiber is Bob's Butcher.

by mkautzm 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

Holding up Google as a reference point is really disingenuous. It's not clear Google is making any money on Google Fiber, and so far they've only decided to enter a few municipalities where they've refused to agree to the sorts of regulatory constraints that Comcast is subject to in those same places. There's a real question here: could Google keep shareholders happy if Fiber was a standalone business?

mkautzm 12y ago
> There's a real question here: could Google keep shareholders happy if Fiber was a standalone business? This right here is a really good reason why Internet service needs to be Title II'd. If the primary concern surrounding what is now an incredibly vital piece of the communications infrastructure is, 'how do we keep shareholders happy', then our priorities are fucked.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 12y ago
  The primary concern of trucking and air transport concerns are also shareholder welfare. Should we nationalize transportation?
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    Or highways?
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    The same could also be said of just about every grocery store. Even small mom-and-pop stores (or perhaps especially them) are concerned with shareholder welfare, more so than "What will happen if Ted runs out of pickles this week?".
    - tptacek 12y ago
      Regional pickle shortages probably aren't going to have the same effect on the economy as a nationwide trucking strike. :)
      - tedunangst 12y ago
        Well, food in general. It doesn't get much more basic need than food, but there's not much government regulation guaranteeing my right to buy food.
arebop 12y ago
Not really. Your question is reasonable, but the real point here is that Comcast is not remotely competitive with Google Fiber. If Google Fiber were a loss leader or otherwise levitated by Google, then this would be a disingenuous comparison. But we know that Fiber is not operated at a loss [http://gigaom.com/2012/07/26/the-economics-of-google-fiber-and-what-it-means-for-u-s-broadband/ http://gigaom.com/2012/07/26/the-economics-of-google-fiber-a...]. So it may be the most profitable part of Google's business, or it may earn as little as $0 profit, which is roughly what you'd expect in a perfectly competitive commodity market. In any case, we can clearly see that Comcast is not serving consumers as well as possible.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 12y ago
  Having a profitability above zero doesn't mean much. Nobody is going to invest billions a year in a telecom network to not make any money on it. The fact that Google can do it in a handful of markets selected for their willingness to grant massive regulatory concessions,[1] doesn't meant that they could deliver that service at that price if they had to operate at the scale Comcast does, with the regulatory constraints Comcast is subject to, and with the need to please shareholders without leaning on cloud services synergy. [1] This issue is important but underappreciated here on HN. Uptake rate is a key driver for the cost/benefit analysis of investing in telecom infrastructure. The cost of building out to a neighborhood dominates the cost term. So how many people in each neighborhood sign up has a huge impact on your per user cost. Google only builds out to fiberhoods with demonstrated interest. In most cities, Comcast is legally prevented from doing this.

tzs 12y ago

I'm reminded of some dialog from an old TV show. I think it was "I Love Lucy", but I'm not sure. It went something like this: (Lucy is buying a pound of steak from the butcher shop. Note this was set in the 1950's, so food is considerably cheaper than it is now) Butcher: that will be $0.85, please Lucy: $0.85!? Bob's Butcher down the street sells steak for $0.55 per pound! Butcher: then go buy your steak from Bob's. Lucy: I would, but Bob's is out of steak. Butcher: Lady, when I'm out of steak, I'll sell it for $0.50 per pound! For all but less than a handful of places, Google Fiber is Bob's Butcher.