awaythrowme

3 ms·

1.
by awaythrowme 13y ago
They wouldn't have access to that fiber, they would have to do their own fiber drop and I point out why that's bad in the remainder of my previous post. Regarding ATT/Texas: Having a competitor is not what economists mean when they refer to
2.
by awaythrowme 13y ago
Presumably those competitors won't have access to fiber to the home. Besides the fact that it doesn't make sense to roll out separate fiber for each provider it is clear that municipal owned fiber would decrease barriers to entry and theref
3.
by awaythrowme 13y ago
The problem is that when a company owns the last mile it has a natural monopoly. An incumbent being overthrown isn't the same as having long lasting competition.
4.
by awaythrowme 13y ago
The point is that the lines will no longer be owned by the city.
5.
by awaythrowme 13y ago
How could it? Google would own the infrastructure in the city making competition extremely difficult. New monopolist, same as the old monopolist.
6.
by awaythrowme 13y ago
It is a really bad deal because it eliminates municipal ownership of the infrastructure that would facilitate competition. Instead they are installing a new monopolist which will only seem to improve things in the short term.
7.
by awaythrowme 13y ago
Don't forget the data caps.
8.
by awaythrowme 13y ago
Take him seriously about what? That he has built the devices he claims to have built? That he actually wants widespread wearable computing?
9.
by awaythrowme 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francization#Francization_in_Qu... Any large company should have a policy document which states the absurd rules including installation of French software versions and use of French keyboards, hiring and e-mai