dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-10-02 10:34:25: A few weeks back we noted how Google's franchise deal with Kansas City for Google Fiber was a particularly sweet arrangement. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · next


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1

Sorry, but no

I'm sure they'd be willing to grant similair sweet arangements if AT&T or TW wanted to deployed 1Gbps ftth, if you want that deal with lame ass old copper or cable lines, keep dreaming.


michieru
Premium
join:2009-07-25
Miami, FL

1 recommendation

LOL

You didn't deliver. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Fair is Fair.

Title says it all. Especially when the project only has to last for 2 years, if they had plans on making it last longer, they wouldn't have the 2year clause.


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2

2 recommendations

Same Perks?

That's socialism.


morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000

Competition

Time Warner and AT&T do not compete on price or service. That is why Google Fiber was born.


Gozo

join:2012-07-25

Why shouldnt they?

Google is partially funded by our tax payer money through the NSA and Darpa which is why they can afford to offer so many services for free or cheap.

I'd call that an unfair advantage.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to hottboiinnc

Re: Fair is Fair.

said by hottboiinnc:

Title says it all.

Now this was inevitable. If a gov't discriminates between vendors and doesn't go thru open bidding processes, they will be challenged in court. But KC knows they are on weak footing and is doing deals with TWC & AT&T.

»professional.wsj.com/article_ema ··· 3Wj.html

Among the sweeteners granted Google by both cities are free office space and free power for Google's equipment, according to the agreement on file with the cities. The company also gets the use of all the cities' "assets and infrastructure"—including fiber, buildings, land and computer tools, for no charge. Both cities are even providing Google a team of government employees "dedicated to the project."

Time Warner Cable has been negotiating with Kansas City, Kan.,to get a "parity agreement" granting it the same concessions as Google got, the city and the company says. Time Warner Cable has already signed such a deal with Kansas City, Mo.

AT&T also has approached Kansas City, Mo., for the same deal, according to a person familiar with the matter.

All of a sudden, the cost to Kansas City taxpayers is going up and up for this Google deal.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat ··· rm_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat ··· onalism/

pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2
Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..
reply to MovieLover76

TW and AT&T will grant lifetime free internet when pigs fly

said by MovieLover76:

I'm sure they'd be willing to grant similair sweet arangements if AT&T or TW wanted to deployed 1Gbps ftth, if you want that deal with lame ass old copper or cable lines, keep dreaming.

Will AT&T and TW offer free service for a one time install fee? Will they match or beat Google's pricing? If so, let them have parity.

The Google offer seems very good imo. If it works in KC, then maybe other cities will benefit.

Google walking away, leaves a lot of infrastructure for the city to hire a 3rd party operator to manage, potentially at very low costs to consumers.
--
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." - Milton Friedman"

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

It is not necessarily At&t/Time Warner's problem that they have old infrastructure. They have been operating services for a long time. Google is coming in with brand new infrastructure capable of fast and unnecessary speeds. It would be extremely expensive for At&t and TW to do the same thing google is, and they would not be able to turn a profit at the same prices google is charging. If Google were in this for real and not just for experimental projects that they will probably find a way to use as a tax write-off, things would be different.

So I have to agree with TW and At&t. If google gets the perks, so should they.

LostInWoods

join:2004-04-14
Reviews:
·Windstream
reply to Gozo

Re: Why shouldnt they?

As opposed to AT&T? Do you really want to make that comparison? Or as opposed to the big cable companies like TWC that built their initial systems with a local monopoly on video service? Who has the unfair advantage?

By and large, there is NO competitive free market in telecom in the USA. At least not at the consumer level. And it is beyond stupid to maintain the fiction that we somehow need to provide a "level playing field" to the duopoly "competitors" in the field, while ignoring that they were put in place by monopoly protections and HUGE taxpayer/ratepayer subsidies.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to MovieLover76

Re: Sorry, but no

said by MovieLover76:

I'm sure they'd be willing to grant similair sweet arangements if AT&T or TW wanted to deployed 1Gbps ftth, if you want that deal with lame ass old copper or cable lines, keep dreaming.

KC, MO is already granting TWC & AT&T similar perks as Google got without requiring any special promises from them. And they are doing it because the cities know they are on a weak legal footing in providing Google perks not extended to Goggle's competitors.

»professional.wsj.com/article_ema ··· 3Wj.html

Time Warner Cable has already signed such a deal with Kansas City, Mo.

AT&T also has approached Kansas City, Mo., for the same deal, according to a person familiar with the matter.

--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat ··· rm_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat ··· onalism/


funehi

@nycourts.gov
reply to silbaco

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

Why couldn't they? They would just have to build new like Google is doing.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to silbaco
said by silbaco:

It is not necessarily At&t/Time Warner's problem that they have old infrastructure. They have been operating services for a long time. Google is coming in with brand new infrastructure capable of fast and unnecessary speeds. It would be extremely expensive for At&t and TW to do the same thing google is, and they would not be able to turn a profit at the same prices google is charging. If Google were in this for real and not just for experimental projects that they will probably find a way to use as a tax write-off, things would be different.

So I have to agree with TW and At&t. If google gets the perks, so should they.

And so they will. KC, MO already signing a deal to do so.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat ··· rm_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat ··· onalism/

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

2 recommendations

reply to morbo

Re: Competition

said by morbo:

Time Warner and AT&T do not compete on price or service. That is why Google Fiber was born.

It was born because Google wants to experiment and see what kind of information ISPs have access to and datamine it to no end.

AndyDufresne
Premium
join:2010-10-30
Chanhassen, MN

1 recommendation

Sunlight is the way to handle this.

Make sure the local media knows and reports on what TWC and ATT are asking for and then someone shove a mic in their reps. face and ask if they will be providing the same service that Google will be providing. Sometimes you just have to call out crazy and make them defend their decisions in front of the camera.

tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·ooma
·Verizon FiOS

deal or no deal?

do they promise $70 1 gigabit symmetric broadband?
if it doesn't resemble anything like it, then they can go to hell.. these big fat ISP companies choked down BILLIONS of dollars in the past two decades of freebies.. more than paying for the hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying.. and yet screwed the consumer just about at every turn for their trouble.

besides, there are only justifications for any type of benefit in places where it is geographically expensive to deploy fiber.. and that is primarily to rural places.. with how much fiber optic cable is strong along the northeast.. these ISPs should practically be paying YOU to take their service.. and not looking for a hand-out..

the bar's been set so high now that ISPs are crying poor when some have made unwise investments and disadvantaged the consumer for so long they've blown they're credibility putting the idea of hefty TF (termination fees) on the table as part of the strings attached.

remains to be seen what these Kansas and Missouri people DO with 1 gigabit fiber.. will the find ways to max it out?!? hehe...


dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus

join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
kudos:1
reply to silbaco

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

No. Just because you make one bad deal does not mean you should be forced to make another.


michieru
Premium
join:2009-07-25
Miami, FL
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
reply to FFH5

Re: Fair is Fair.

Considering the attitude Time Warner and AT&T had over services it would seem they would accept but not provide gigabit ethernet like Google is currently doing. The amount of funding AT&T has already received from other sources has not caused any great innovation in the market of Kansas either.

A fair approach would of been for no red carpet towards anyone in that market but since there was a demand for faster services then this is a burden the tax payers must face but towards the provider chosen for those incentives not a free lunch for the rest who couldn't deliver or much rather wouldn't deliver.

Judging how Kansas City is making deals now with the other two it seems that they didn't really follow proper procedures when entering this Google deal and Time Warner including AT&T know it.

I wonder what the fine print really says. Public service request anyone?

maestro7

join:2004-08-31
Loganville, GA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Southeast
reply to silbaco

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

"...unnecessary speeds."

Legend has it that Bill Gates once stated in 1981 that 640K (not MB) of RAM should be enough to run applications (»www.computerworld.com/s/article/ ··· _say_it_).

Not only this, but the whole reason why, for example, wireless data has caught the telcos unawares (hence data caps and paying increasingly higher prices for what they were effectively offering years ago) is because the market is looking for ways to break through bandwidth barriers.

However, there is no stopping it. So, if we're all going to blame anyone for the need for speed, might as well blame AAPL for creating such a huge market for products and services that use more and more bandwidth.

ltecajun

join:2012-10-02
Rayne, LA

Google playing games again.

"Google Fiber exists because companies like AT&T and Time Warner Cable failed to provide the kind of connectivity consumers want; despite adequate resources"

I am quite sure that 95% of everyone else does not have your same viewpoint. All they care about is the cost of said services. Personally I think this is another attempt by Google to pressure others to do their own bidding which will ultimately fail with Google leaving a junk network behind.


morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000

1 recommendation

reply to silbaco

Re: Competition

Compared to AT&T giving complete phone and internet data to the NSA without a court oversight? Compared to AT&T, Google is Jesus.

ltecajun

join:2012-10-02
Rayne, LA
reply to tmc8080

Re: deal or no deal?

I would like to know what exactly you do on your FIOS connection that would require such a large connection? I have already cut the cord myself and find it very difficult to find the need for such bandwidth unless I want to view illegal content. Netflix/Amazon/Roku type services only require maximum of 5-7 Mbps.


workablob

join:2004-06-09
Houston, TX
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to maestro7

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

said by maestro7:

"...unnecessary speeds."

Legend has it that Bill Gates once stated in 1981 that 640K (not MB) of RAM should be enough to run applications (»www.computerworld.com/s/article/ ··· _say_it_).

It would be funny if it were true which it is not.

Dave
--
I may have been born yesterday. But it wasn't at night.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to morbo

Re: Competition

said by morbo:

Compared to AT&T giving complete phone and internet data to the NSA without a court oversight? Compared to AT&T, Google is Jesus.

You don't think Google will give out internet data to the NSA?

Google monitors everyone and uses it to build a database about you. They probably know more about you than your closest friend or significant other. I don't think that is much better.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to ltecajun

Re: deal or no deal?

said by ltecajun:

I would like to know what exactly you do on your FIOS connection that would require such a large connection? I have already cut the cord myself and find it very difficult to find the need for such bandwidth unless I want to view illegal content. Netflix/Amazon/Roku type services only require maximum of 5-7 Mbps.

You won't get anywhere with that argument. Because they will say some frat house with 20 members and 12 devices each and downloading HD videos 24hrs a day needs 1gb/s at $100/mo. and not providing it is a human rights violation.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat ··· rm_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat ··· onalism/


n1581j

@wildblue.net
reply to workablob

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

Actually, it was 256k, I happened to be there. It's the reason the original PC from IBM only provided 256K max on it's motherboard. It was only when AST and others with their Advantage, Rampage 384K boards plus ports took it to 640K, did it change. Of course you weren't old enough to know back then.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to funehi
said by funehi :

Why couldn't they? They would just have to build new like Google is doing.

Which would be extremely expensive. I am all for building new fiber networks, but the fact remains that it is expensive. It is a serious investment for something that at this point we do not need. I congratulate the companies that do it. But I also understand why a lot of companies do not do it.

Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Who cares, give me one gig

Seriously, who gives a damn if incumbents are being treated "unfairly". Give us a damn gig everywhere.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to hottboiinnc

Re: Fair is Fair.

You make assumptions that you know nothing of concerning why it was a 2 year agreement.

At least they openly put a limit on their plans if it is not going well where as your corporate bed buddies just keep on saying they are doing this and doing that while getting incentives and then suddenly stop without warning.

Bottom line, as pointed out in the article, is that both TW and AT&T had their chance. They choose to do nothing, they choose not to try and work out a deal with the city to improve there, they ultimately choose to have a competitor come in and pickup the market they didnt want to invest in.

I personally would tell them NO, you can lease the lines from Google as we dont think it is in our cities best interest to run multiple fiber lines all over the city to reach the same destination of homes and businesses.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to maestro7

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

said by maestro7:

"...unnecessary speeds."

Legend has it that Bill Gates once stated in 1981 that 640K (not MB) of RAM should be enough to run applications (»www.computerworld.com/s/article/ ··· _say_it_).

Not only this, but the whole reason why, for example, wireless data has caught the telcos unawares (hence data caps and paying increasingly higher prices for what they were effectively offering years ago) is because the market is looking for ways to break through bandwidth barriers.

However, there is no stopping it. So, if we're all going to blame anyone for the need for speed, might as well blame AAPL for creating such a huge market for products and services that use more and more bandwidth.

Our 4G wireless services are some of the best, if not the best data networks in the world. Verizon's 4G network is amazing and they did not require special government treatment over their competitors to get it done.

As for our wired services, what is it that people need that Time Warner and At&t cannot provide currently in Kansas City? They exceed our demands by quite a large margin and always seem to be boosting speeds and capabilities. U-Verse can move quite a bit more data than it currently is, but there is no reason to do so at this time.