Postal Service almost never denies mail-surveillance requests

Re:Postal Service almost never denies mail-surveillance requ... by mseebach on Monday November 24, 2014 @11:30AM (#8653110)

One of the (few) thing Google Fiber looks at when deciding to enter a new market is access. There's no reason to believe that Google would take a decade to cover the US if they could get the access issues sorted.

The more poignant question is, what will your neutral internet connection look like after a decade of full-blown monopoly? Title II is monopoly regulation, and there's no reason to believe the cost of Title II won't be formalised monopoly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Postal Service almost never denies mail-surveillance requ... by 01Michael10 on Monday November 24, 2014 @11:55AM (#8653249)

Why wouldn't you think that? Google doesn't have unlimited money to build a nation wide network overnight and even so this would only give us two players. You need at least 3-4 players if not more to have real competition.

Your second statement is just wrong...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Postal Service almost never denies mail-surveillance requ... by wtallis on Monday November 24, 2014 @12:15PM (#8653355)

Competition isn't the end goal; what we really want is the service and prices to be at least as good as what a competitive market would yield. Google Fiber may not be all the way there, but it's close enough to be a great interim option.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Postal Service almost never denies mail-surveillance requ... by 01Michael10 on Monday November 24, 2014 @01:02PM (#8653630)

Yes, Google fiber looks great right because they are only in a couple of markets. Building out nation wide would cost a lot of money and time...

Google already runs most people's cell phones, search, browser, email, mapping service, etc. so it seems to me being one's ISP also potentially could be really bad.

[ Parent | on HN ]