Assuming you are referencing the plans described here: http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/10/google-fiber-optic-network-home/
and not the ones described here: http://www.google.com/tisp/ All I can say is that I will give a more than serious look at any company willing to bring real gigabit to my house for the same price I currently pay for FIOS' 30/5. But, to be completely honest, I can't even conceive of what a gigabit Internet experience would be like. Perhaps it wouldn't be too different from today's speeds. I don't know. In any case, regardless of the ISP, I wonder if today's WiFi will be the rate limiting step for a lot of people for a long time to come. Now that 802.11g is both ubiquitous, and thought of ubiquitously as 'faster than your underlying internet connection', I wonder if there won't be a dip in the adoption curve even if stupid-fast connections are made available for cheap. Inquiring minds want to know (and want stupid-fast internet connections...) RS On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Rod Trent <[email protected]> wrote: > Like sell their own cable connection service... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 5:46 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: OT: Google Username Assistance - huh? > > The seriousness of China and Iran's actions doesn't justify the word > "attack". > > China and Iran ban them because they won't filter out search results that > would give the people of those countries information the governments don't > want them to have. > > Google used to "play ball" with China to filter results but recently quit > doing so. And that's a good thing, even if it loses them the China or Iran > business. They have plenty to do otherwise. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rod Trent [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 5:11 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: OT: Google Username Assistance - huh? > > Plus, do a little digging and you'll see some serious Google connections to > the US gov't. They're protected. Why do you think countries like China > and > Iran are banning them? It’s a direct attack on the US. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 5:01 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: OT: Google Username Assistance - huh? > > Google is an internet darling and has been pretty much since day one. > > Regards, > > Michael B. Smith > Consultant and Exchange MVP > http://TheEssentialExchange.com > > From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 4:54 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: OT: Google Username Assistance - huh? > > So where's the Internet outrage against Google for being out of > compliance? > Or is Google simply indifferent, following the path blazed by Microsoft for > ignoring standards? I guess they already are "too big to fail" and now > also "too big to be wrong"? > > Carl > > From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 4:48 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: OT: Google Username Assistance - huh? > > No. > > Gmail's behavior is not RFC compliant. > > They started out using the '+'s for "throw-away" addresses, but apparently > websites caught onto that pretty quick so they expanded into full-stops. > > Regards, > > Michael B. Smith > Consultant and Exchange MVP > http://TheEssentialExchange.com > > From: Carl Houseman [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 4:44 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: OT: Google Username Assistance - huh? > > Oh brother . I guess a mail server can do whatever it wants regarding > matching addresses to mailboxes for delivery and no RFC cares? > > Thanks for clearing up the mystery. > > Carl > > From: Andrew Levicki [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 4:36 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: OT: Google Username Assistance - huh? > > Hi Carl, > > I believe that gmail ignores periods in the left hand side of the address, > so in fact those two email addresses are the same account, i.e. not > forwarding. You could equally say the same > about [email protected] > , c........h.o........u.s.......e.m......a. > [email protected], you get the idea. > > They also ignore anything after a plus symbol [ "+" ], > therefore > [email protected]<c.h.o.u.s.e.m.a.n%[email protected]>equally > goes > the same way. > > Feel free to try the above and see if it works. > > I hope this helps. > > Andrew > On 11 February 2010 06:25, Carl Houseman <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, this seems very weird to me. For some time, mail addressed to > [email protected] has been delivered to my [email protected] mailbox. > I thought, at some point, I created the chouseman mailbox and configured > forwarding. But I couldn't sign in to Google with the chouseman address > and > no attempts to use their automatic password reset worked. About 3 months > ago I went the distance trying to reset the password, using the last resort > method several times. Each time I received an automatic message telling me > I should be able to access the account, but of course, I never could. > > And then today this comes in: > ---------------------------- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 3:55 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Google Username Assistance > > We searched our database but we were unable to find any usernames > associated > with your email address [email protected]. > > <snipped instructions for accessing my account, which apparently doesn't > exist> > ---------------------------- > > So the takeaway from that message is what, exactly? There's no username, > therefore there is no account associated with [email protected]? And > nonetheless, I have to keep receiving e-mail for that address? I don't see > where a Google account can have multiple e-mail addresses tied to it as > Exchange can, but apparently that's what has happened? > > It's crap like this that will keep me from ever recommending cloud services > from Google. > > Carl > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > -- > Kind regards, > > Andrew Levicki MCITP MCSE CCNA > [email protected] > www.andrewlevicki.eu > > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
