April 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

« LGC | Main | Chapter 9 »

Feb 17, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Geeks unite!



No comment about "net neutrality" regarding this development?

Or are we all so GaGa over Google that the ramifications are lost on us?

sean coon

hey bubba, why don't you enlighten us heathens to how this google initiative and net neutrality have anything to do with one another instead of sniping from upon high?


Google's initiative is a move to shore up net neutrality. They plan to allow multiple providers to provision service over their new network.


Looks like wishful thinking is alive and well in Greensboro's online community.

Don't worry your little heads about Google, gang. If you believe they've got altruistic reasons to support "net nuetrality" specifically, and no desire to influence public policy in general to their great advantage, far be it for me to change your mind.

Go back to sleep.


Bubba, first you wondered why there was no concern about net neutrality, then when told that Google's efforts will support net neutrality you changed the subject to how Google profits from net neutrality. OK.

Jim Caserta

This initiative is more about video than it is about pure internet. Nearly everyone predicts the end of the current CATV pricing model, and a birth of a pay-per-view for everything - you only watch HGTV & NatGeo, that's all you pay for. The way CATV is delivered now is not conducive to pure pay-per-view, but the current 'broadcast' model and the way we pay now. With 1GBPs, streaming on-demand video, for multiple sets per home should not be a problem.

Google's intentions are to give you higher quality, lower cost internet & 'cable' TV. As ominous as an invisible hand...


"..then when told that Google's efforts will support net neutrality you changed the subject to how Google profits from net neutrality. OK."

Google's support of net neutrality was no big secret. Also no big secret are their motives for doing so.

"Net neutrality", as currently proposed, is a simple effort at control. Evidence shows Google has no qualms about massaging an advantage to gain control.

On the other hand, they're not unique in doing something like that. but they do possess the capability to dominate in a fashion no other company can if they manage to gin the system.

Be careful. Google has the capacity to make its rivals look like rank amateurs in this game. There may come a time when some will look back wistfully at TWC's tenure.


I'm a satellite guy but have often wondered why there were not more pick and choose options. There are numerous channels in our package that we never watch.

Buyer beware but Gso should explore options. But this is the BIG BIG LEAGUES. Ed has documented the Lenoir process. I dont recall it being pretty.

Jim Caserta

This is a wholly different situation then Lenoir. My back of the napkin calculations show that a 2k/home investment on 500k homes is $1Bil. 50/mo/home -> 600/yr/home -> $300Mil. That's a gross 30% ROI. Rolling the fiber will be labor intensive for the months it takes.

Look at Verizon's FiOS. Google's will be FiOS on steroids, with a dramatically different interface for TV.

This is complete speculation on my part, but higher BW -> video, and dismantling the CATV price structure and pure HD video-on-demand are both dreams of providers & users. Imagine if you missed Lost, but don't want ABC's interface or to watch on your PC. You go through a set-top-box and either stream it instantly or put a request in and DVR it after-the-fact.

Unless they are asking the localities to foot the bill for the fiber roll-out, this seems like a very good play for both the cities & for Google. Real capitalism generates win-win transactions, and I see this being in that mold.


Here's some additional perspective on the Google deal:

"I'm consistently amazed at how much Google resembles the Microsoft of the mid-'90s. Which is to say, a company with a core business so successful that it hides the fact that they fail at nearly everything else they touch.

....Not to worry. Whatever Google does next--Slate tells us that they're getting into the ISP business--you can be sure that the media will still pre-sell it as revolutionary and brilliant and destined to change the world. Again."

sean coon

from the same article, "even the "successful" acquisitions Google has made--Google Earth, Google Maps, and Google Docs, were all purchases, too--have taken up resources without creating significant revenue."

for the time being, revenue outside of search is not the primary concern in mountain view. not even close. google products, extraneous to google search, do two specific things for the google business model:

1) they attract users to the google domain, which increases their search numbers (and search revenue)
2) they detract from yahoo and the rest of the competition's user base

comparing google to microsoft is like comparing the space shuttle to a model t ford. sure, the shuttle can blow up every now and then, but shit man, it's going to outer space!

Jim Caserta

Fail? Do you use mapquest or google maps? And the map function is very useful combined with search - especially with the street view where you can see what things will look like when you get there. And local based ads have to be more effective than non-local. Google docs is a different beast and points to the use of cloud computing & their Chrome OS - very long term project.

Now - what was the first comparison I made to Google's initiative - to Verizon's FiOS, showing how revolutionary Google's idea was. What will potentially be revolutionary is HOW GOOGLE DELIVERS VIDEO - see Ed's more recent post. I believe they will abandon the traditional CATV pricing model, and in that you will see others follow. Consumers will be helped, but content providers will suffer because they will only get paid for the people that actually want their product.

The barrier to entry for search is not the same as for OS & applications. MSFT used to withhold their source code for new windows versions, so Win95 comes out, you have new versions of Office right away, but it would take longer for Lotus123 or WordPerfect to get new versions out. That was their anti-competitive action, not anything to do with browsers. (I still think I could have made a better case than David Boies). Apple's OS being on Intel platforms (should be portable to PCs) and having access to office should give real competition to Vista & 7.

I would question an article referencing cell phones that can't spell Motorola correctly...

The comments to this entry are closed.