[171737] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nick B)
Mon May 12 10:57:15 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <1399903256_81852@surgemail.mnsi.net>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 10:53:45 -0400
From: Nick B <nick@pelagiris.org>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Even if you are right, which I'm not sure you are about the cost as Google
isn't the only FTTH provider, at least one of the major players *HAS
ALREADY PEEN PAID TO DO THE WORK*.
http://stopthecap.com/2014/03/17/new-jerseys-fiber-ripoff-verizon-walks-away-from-fiber-upgrades-customers-already-paid-for/
Nick
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Clayton Zekelman <clayton@mnsi.net> wrote:
>
> Actually, I've done a bit of overbuild, and it does "omg cost a lot".
>
> We don't know how much Google Fiber has paid to build the network.
> They're Google, they can do it just because they feel like it.
>
> Of course I don't have any proof, but the rest of your points may not be
> far off the mark.
>
>
>
> At 09:44 AM 12/05/2014, Nick B wrote:
>
>> Google Fiber and various other FTTH services disprove the "omg it costs a
>> lot" theory. This is purely a money grab by a monopoly, sanctioned by the
>> FCC because.. the people doing the money grab own the FCC. It helps to
>> keep in mind that several of the parties involved in this grab *HAVE
>> ALREADY BEEN PAID TO EXPAND THEIR NETWORKS BY THE PUBLIC, AND HAVE FAILED
>> TO DO SO*. I'm not really sure how anyone could view this whole thing as
>> fair, honest or even legal. I also fully expect the FCC to sign off on it
>> as the receipt says "Paid by Verizon."
>> Nick
>>
>
> ---
>
> Clayton Zekelman
> Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
> 3363 Tecumseh Rd. E
> Windsor, Ontario
> N8W 1H4
>
> tel. 519-985-8410
> fax. 519-985-8409
>
