| 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. |
|
| LOL You didn't deliver. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. |
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
 elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand | Same Perks? That's socialism. |
|
 morboComplete 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to hottboiinnc
Re: Fair is Fair. 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.htmlAmong 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-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/ |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Google Voice
 ·Comcast
·ooma
·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" |
|
| 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. |
|
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. |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, 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.htmlTime 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-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/ |
|
| 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. |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, 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-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/ |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
 ·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... |
|
 dnoyeBFerrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI | 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. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
·AT&T U-Verse
 ·Clearwire Wireless
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Linklist
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? |
|
Reviews:
·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. |
|
| 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. |
|
