Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
from the non-soluble-fiber-is-good-for-digestion dept.
Fluffeh writes:
"Google has officially invited 34 cities in nine metro areas to become the next batch of the Google Fiber rollout.
Google said it 'genuinely would like to build in all of these cities,' but that the complexities of deploying networks may not allow it. 'During this process, we will work with each city to map out in detail what it would look like to build a new fiber-optic network there,' Google said. 'The most important part of this teamwork will be identifying what obstacles might pop up during network construction — and then working together to find the smoothest path around those obstacles. Some might be easy, some might take some creative thinking or a few months to iron out, and in some cases there might be such local complexities that we decide it's not the right time to build Google Fiber there.'"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dmc on Thursday February 20 2014, @04:47AM
No, a much more precise analogy would be a road builder not allowing people to drive to their employer in their sedans because unlike a trip to the grocery story, they are profiting by going to work. Or, an even more precise analogy would be selective enforcement, allowing people to drive to work in their sedans, because the private road owner would get laughed out of town for trying to preclude people driving their sedan to work, but selectively enforcing against pizza delivery drivers who are profiting from their sedan deliveries to other households because they want to get a 10% cut of the pizza delivery driver's profits. And if there is someone making 10 times the amount of money driven per sedan/mile on the road because they are making more profit-efficient use of the same sedan-mile wear and tear on the road, the road builder wanting 10 times as much (because that would be the same 10% tax), or perhaps even 20 times as much because they know the sedan-driving independent businessman is so successful they can afford it, and have no other road to choose from. Or if they do have precisely one or two other roads to choose from, they find that magically and coincidentally, all 3 private road owners are charging the same 20% tax for such highly profit-efficient businesses.
I mean, if you want a more precise analogy.
There is a difference between tiers of service that a majority of businesses need (but not *all* businesses) and businesses that can still get by with the same lowest tier of service. In fact, if you look at a section 1 sherman antitrust violation criteria as I've mentioned 2 or 3 other places in this article's comments, you'll see that it is simply not legal in the U.S. to make (1)agreements that (2)unreasonably restrain (3)interstate commerce. If I can use a commercial server at my residence with no more uptime or bandwidth or customer support requirements than my neighbor using Skype and Ebay to profit with interstate digital traffic between my server and clients, that is just plain AFAICT against the law in the U.S.