

Questions to Ask at Google-Fiber Announcement - hk__2
http://precursorblog.com/content/questions-ask-google-fiber-announcement

======
jmillikin
Here's a fun game: if you start at the beginning of this blog's archive[1] and
browse forward, you can spot the exact moment when Google's support for net
neutrality landed it on the blogger's enemies list. At first, the anti-Google
posts are entirely about net neutrality[2], but in 2007 they start to shift
towards more general complaints. Interestingly, the blog started mixing in
pro-Microsoft posts at the same time (previously, it was pro-Verizon). By 2010
the blogger had started writing most of his posts about Google, and was now
being funded directly by Microsoft[3].

2011 and 2012 saw the addition of pro-AT&T and anti-Netflix posts, with a
sudden surge of pro-SOPA posts starting in late 2011. After SOPA failed, the
posts changed again to become almost exclusively anti-Google or pro-Verizon
(with the occasional anti-Netflix thrown in). The pro-AT&T posts seem to have
tapered off.

[1] <http://precursorblog.com/archive/200605>

[2] [http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Scott-Cleland-Google-
Usin...](http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Scott-Cleland-Google-
Using-21x-The-Bandwidth-They-Pay-For-99475)

[3] [http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2009/06/google-
crit...](http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2009/06/google-critic-paid-
by-microsof.php)

~~~
condiment
This sort of ad-hominem attack doesn't really have a place on Hacker News.
It's no secret that Scott Cleland is an anti-Google shill, available for hire
by fortune 500 companies to write books and testify in front of Congress, but
the correct response to his arguments is to point out the gaps in his
reasoning and prove him wrong.

Instead, this is an appeal to groupthink to disregard the fair (and not-so-
fair) questions raised in the blog post, instead of responding critically to
them.

~~~
Stefan_H
While I love the pointing out of logical fallacies, this is not necessarily an
ad-hominem attack on the argument. I think this post provides important
context for the reading of the article. Since I did not know of the blogger's
background, this comment allowed me to put it into context.

------
aidenn0
Wow, while some of these questions are fair, others are not.

* All ISPs can do DPI on their customers broadband, some do it to greater extent than others

* Calling this "luxury broadband" is perhaps a stretch since the lowest tier offered is slightly faster than low-end DSL, while being priced similarly ( if you base it on the $25/mo for the first year)

* I'm sure if any of Google's competitors wanted to run fibre and make KC a central part of a major fibre launch event, they could have gotten similar subsidies;

* Yeah, lets bring up the wifi street view case just because it makes google look bad, and see if we can try to make it pertain to this article

As far as subsidies go, I have some sympathy as I'm not a huge fan of it
(though I might go after stadium deals first, as IMO infrastructure is a
better investment than sports teams). However, time and time again has shown
that the easiest way to get higher speed broadband is to start a municipal
FTTH project in your city. I don't know how many times (DSL, next gen DSL,
DOCSIS 3, FioS) has been "1 year away" for multiple years in places I've
lived. However, cities that get past the early stages of planning municipal
fibre end up with the newest stuff PDQ.

------
Matt_Cutts
Note: according to an article at
[http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21172515/obrien-
micro...](http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21172515/obrien-microsoft-
and-google-battle-influence-policy-shadows) published today in the San Jose
Mercury News, Scott Cleland "gained funding -- to a degree that he won't
disclose -- from Google's competitors, including Microsoft."

If you read Cleland's writing, he's pretty consistently anti-Google, to an
even greater degree than Florian Mueller for example (who also receives
funding from Microsoft, as well as from Oracle).

------
dannyr
Sidenote: The writer is selling his own book - "Search & Destroy: Why You
Can't Trust Google Inc."

------
mladenkovacevic
Great questions. They should be directed at not just Google but other players
in the market and across a number of industries as well. I have a feeling that
in many cases answers would not be pleasant to hear.

~~~
condiment
I agree that there are a lot of excellent questions there. The author
references the Google-Kansas City agreement [1] throughout the article, and
has articulated some very real, pressing concerns about the terms of that
contract.

It's my understanding, however, that ALL of the infrastructure providers for a
city will have similar contracts with the city, but I've been unable to find
any online records for Google's competitors ATT & Time Warner. I imagine that
while each of the contracts will feature significant differences, the average
person would balk at the privileges the city government affords to each of
these companies.

Without those documents to put the Google-KC contract into context, I'd
hesitate to draw any conclusions from Google's (possible) response.

[1] [http://www.netcompetition.org/wp-content/uploads/Google-
Kans...](http://www.netcompetition.org/wp-content/uploads/Google-Kansas-
Agreement1.pdf)

------
amalag
Nice, love the tough questions!

