Unfortunately and fortunately I have been in all of those spots. So I have a basis upon which to opine. In contrast the academic attorneys most likely would not in my opinion be accepted as an expert witness. The Daubert rule most likely would knock them out. Hearsay does not an expert make.
Now in Backchannel one of these folks states:
We do need fiber, everywhere. But
we’re talking about basic infrastructure when we talk about fiber. And
it is not in any private company’s short-term interest to make that
basic fiber infrastructure — which amounts to a substantial upgrade to
the last-century copper and cable lines with which Americans are now
stuck — available to everyone at a reasonable price. Google’s
retreat is all about the bottom line. It wanted an unrealistic rate of
return on basic infrastructure. It wanted to see rapid cost declines per
subscriber, like the Moore’s Law changes in productivity that have
taken place when digital technologists squeeze costs from other legacy
businesses.
Now in my opinion and in my experience there a mass of less than correct statements in the above. First we do NOT need fiber everywhere. I have argued elsewhere that wireless, especially 5G, will very effectively compete with fiber. Secondly fiber is very very expensive. Been there done that. Why the costs? Duh! Politics. Pole attachments, rights of way, franchises, local boards, and on and on. If one has ever tried this then one can see what happens.
So when I see articles of this type I am amazed that they continue. That at no point do they ever ask; what really happened. Google was in my opinion wrong from the start. I think I know what may have happened, but all too often it is egos and too much money.
Posts
