> It gets better: For people that don’t need a super-fast connection, Google is offering a 5Mbps connection for free — yes, free. If Google Fiber expands, there’s no guarantee that this will remain the case, but it could totally upset the market for entry-level broadband. Even the “catch” isn’t that much of a catch. Google is planning on charging a one-time $300 fee to run the fiber to each residence, but if you opt for a contract, the fee is waived. Free accounts will have to pay the installation fee, unfortunately.
Free for 7 years. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's still relevant.
The Free Internet service will be free of a monthly service charge for at least seven years. At the end of seven years, we will begin charging the market price for comparable speeds—which, if Google Fiber is successful, will be $0.
Google would clearly be subsiding the cost of the broadband with advertising/sales from their online properties. If you are someone like Vimeo, Hulu, Netflix etc then you would forever be at a disadvantage to Youtube due to bandwidth costs. Similarly the proven importance of speed in site popularity and conversions means that an entire raft of competitors would again be at a disadvantage. And finally Google would be in a position to wipe out hundreds/thousands of small mom+pop ISPs.
The Google Fiber on its own has competition issues but a free service could just about tip it over the line.
> If you are someone like Vimeo, Hulu, Netflix etc then you would forever be at a disadvantage to Youtube due to bandwidth costs.
No, you are not, because Google happily peers with (almost) everyone. So long as you can get the traffic to one of the 130+ places where google has set up shop, and from there, the traffic is free.
This is much, much better than what Comcast & friends are trying to do, by billing traffic twice (once from the consumers, once from the service providers).
Antitrust law is complicated. Simply subsidizing or undercutting competitors isn't nearly enough; nor is having a monopoly. For example, it wasn't Microsoft's monopoly that got them in trouble, it's that it leveraged its monopoly on Windows to force a monopoly of the browser (special APIs and restrictive license agreements with OEMs)...not to mention the whole Java thing.
Anyways, if someone came out with free energy or free telephones, I doubt anyone would complain. These are utilities. The internet is the same. Last year the UN even declared that the internet is a fundamental basic human right
If they can make the money from the other plans, why would it be an anti-trust issue? Isn't anti-trust about hurting the users, not the competition, anyway?
Comments
> It gets better: For people that don’t need a super-fast connection, Google is offering a 5Mbps connection for free — yes, free. If Google Fiber expands, there’s no guarantee that this will remain the case, but it could totally upset the market for entry-level broadband. Even the “catch” isn’t that much of a catch. Google is planning on charging a one-time $300 fee to run the fiber to each residence, but if you opt for a contract, the fee is waived. Free accounts will have to pay the installation fee, unfortunately.
Free for 7 years. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's still relevant.
On the Help page:
How long will the Free Internet service be free?
The Free Internet service will be free of a monthly service charge for at least seven years. At the end of seven years, we will begin charging the market price for comparable speeds—which, if Google Fiber is successful, will be $0.
The antitrust implications for this are massive.
Google would clearly be subsiding the cost of the broadband with advertising/sales from their online properties. If you are someone like Vimeo, Hulu, Netflix etc then you would forever be at a disadvantage to Youtube due to bandwidth costs. Similarly the proven importance of speed in site popularity and conversions means that an entire raft of competitors would again be at a disadvantage. And finally Google would be in a position to wipe out hundreds/thousands of small mom+pop ISPs.
The Google Fiber on its own has competition issues but a free service could just about tip it over the line.
> If you are someone like Vimeo, Hulu, Netflix etc then you would forever be at a disadvantage to Youtube due to bandwidth costs.
No, you are not, because Google happily peers with (almost) everyone. So long as you can get the traffic to one of the 130+ places where google has set up shop, and from there, the traffic is free.
This is much, much better than what Comcast & friends are trying to do, by billing traffic twice (once from the consumers, once from the service providers).
http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=15169
Are you a lawyer?
Antitrust law is complicated. Simply subsidizing or undercutting competitors isn't nearly enough; nor is having a monopoly. For example, it wasn't Microsoft's monopoly that got them in trouble, it's that it leveraged its monopoly on Windows to force a monopoly of the browser (special APIs and restrictive license agreements with OEMs)...not to mention the whole Java thing.
Anyways, if someone came out with free energy or free telephones, I doubt anyone would complain. These are utilities. The internet is the same. Last year the UN even declared that the internet is a fundamental basic human right
> the UN even declared that the internet is a fundamental basic human right
The UN should stick to prancing around in blue helmets handing out food while ignoring genocide in Tibet.
How is this any different from Comcast buying NBC?
If they can make the money from the other plans, why would it be an anti-trust issue? Isn't anti-trust about hurting the users, not the competition, anyway?
Isn't anti-trust about hurting the users, not the competition, anyway?
It's about hurting the consumer by hurting the competition.