dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-01-18 10:27:09: Trying to get incumbent cable operators to share their sports channels with TV competitors has always been a thorny issue (ask AT&T and Verizon), and it appears to again be a problem for Google Fiber. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

xenophon

join:2007-09-17

1 edit

TWC produces the content, so..

I don't see why TWC should be forced to offer what they produce to competitors. I don't think ATT Uverse, Charter, and Surewest have TWC MetroSports in KC. If they do, then Google has a case.

TWC hasn't offered a promo direct against Google yet in KC probably because Google is currently only in 2 fiberhoods in KCK. The rollout will pickup this Spring in both KCK and KCMO fiberhoods and will hit heavily in Summer. TWC doesn't need to make a move until most of rollout is going.

I was able to get a better deal with TWC last month or so after I called about an increase and ready to use SureWest as leverage. My hood doesn't get GFiber until Fall. TWC also bumped up my speed tier at lower rate, but that's apparently happening in a few other markets too.

KC metro is ISP/TV heaven right now in areas that have multiple options and GFiber hasn't really kicked into gear yet.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

Pot. Kettle. Google.

If Google was truly serious about competing with TWC, they would offer their TV product for less than $120 a month.

xenophon

join:2007-09-17
$120/month not too bad since it includes 1Gbit. But they should include voice service. Maybe something like include an Oooma box, which has option to directly setup with Google Voice service.

xenophon

join:2007-09-17
reply to xenophon

Re: TWC produces the content, so..

BTW, here is the GFiber rollout schedule in both KC's by fiberhood...

KCK...
»fiber.google.com/cities/kck/

KCMO...
»fiber.google.com/cities/kcmo/

ssavoy
Premium
join:2007-08-16
Dallas, PA

1 recommendation

reply to xenophon
I agree, if it's their station I don't see why they have to allow access to competitors.


morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
This issue has already been resolved by the FCC in other markets. TWC will be forced to make these stations available to other providers at reasonable terms.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by morbo:

This issue has already been resolved by the FCC in other markets. TWC will be forced to make these stations available to other providers at reasonable terms.

And what is REASONABLE terms? Reasonable to Google or to TWC? And when they can't agree, does the FCC or some court set a price?
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.


Fiber lover

@paxio.net

Google not symmetric?

I understood google fiber used GPON. If so, their offering couldn't be symmetric.


Rangersfan

@sbcglobal.net
reply to xenophon

Re: TWC produces the content, so..

said by xenophon:

I don't see why TWC should be forced to offer what they produce to competitors. I don't think ATT Uverse, Charter, and Surewest have TWC MetroSports in KC. If they do, then Google has a case.

TWC hasn't offered a promo direct against Google yet in KC probably because Google is currently only in 2 fiberhoods in KCK. The rollout will pickup this Spring in both KCK and KCMO fiberhoods and will hit heavily in Summer. TWC doesn't need to make a move until most of rollout is going.

I was able to get a better deal with TWC last month or so after I called about an increase and ready to use SureWest as leverage. My hood doesn't get GFiber until Fall. TWC also bumped up my speed tier at lower rate, but that's apparently happening in a few other markets too.

KC metro is ISP/TV heaven right now in areas that have multiple options and GFiber hasn't really kicked into gear yet.

I know that AT&T U-verse does not carry MetroSports.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to xenophon
content creation should be broken off of distribution by the government. If you own the network and the content source of course you are not going to sell content to another MSO.

We forced the movie studios to sell off their theaters when the government basically broke up the studio system. But the FTC has no issues letting cable companies own content sources.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
reply to xenophon

Re: Pot. Kettle. Google.

$120 a month for Pay-TV is ridiculous, when the local cable company offers it for $30-50/month.


whiteshp

join:2002-03-05
Xenia, OH
reply to FFH5

Re: TWC produces the content, so..

100$ per hour watched would make TWC very happy I'm sure. So if setting their own inflated price is only fair then they could never "officially" cut anyone out of their network shows with high prices?


skuv

@rr.com
reply to Kearnstd
But why? If I create content and want to distribute it on my own system, why should I be stopped or have to distribute it to others?

It's my content, it differentiates my service from others.

DirecTV signs exclusive NFL deals for Sunday Pass, they don't create that content, but they have an exclusive on it.

What makes that more fair to do than a cable company creating or owning their own content and keeping it exclusive?

They're a private business, they should have that choice.

The content is not a necessity in any way. So why should the government be involved?


whiteshp

join:2002-03-05
Xenia, OH
reply to elray

Re: Pot. Kettle. Google.

The tv service is $50 on top of the $70 internet. Voice service is a joke. Honestly there are so many VOIP services out there to choose from. You could get ultra cheap to a more expensive reliable service depending on what you wanted.

Happydude32
Premium
join:2005-07-16
kudos:1
reply to Kearnstd

Re: TWC produces the content, so..

said by Kearnstd:

content creation should be broken off of distribution by the government. If you own the network and the content source of course you are not going to sell content to another MSO.

We forced the movie studios to sell off their theaters when the government basically broke up the studio system. But the FTC has no issues letting cable companies own content sources.

Why? Who are you and/or the government to say what a company can or cannot sell, or be involved in? Whatever happened to the idea of competition? If Google wants access to these NCAA teams so bad, perhaps they should start their own regional sports network and try to lure those schools away from Metro Sports and broadcast on them on their own RSN. If Metro Sports in KC is anything like the RSN Time Warner has here, it shouldnt be too hard. TWs RSN has very poor production values and seems like a very low budget operation. But I guess this is indicative of society and the slow process of the pussification of America. Why actually do something when the government is there for you to cry to and bandage every little boo-boo.

But the big example of this is Comcast Sports Net Philadelphia and the terrestrial loophole, that is now closed. I pray to God that channel never winds up on satellite or the government tries to stick its nose where it doesnt belong and tries to force Comcast into offering it to the competition. There is simply no reason to interfere with a business doing what they should do and maximize profit, so long as lives are not at stake. Too bad they caved to Verizon, but hopefully theyll never cave or be forced to cave to Dish or DirecTV.
--
iPhone: 4” 1136 X 640 Display, 1.30 GHz Dual Core Processor, 1 GB RAM
MyPhone: 5” 1920 X 1080 Display, 1.50 GHz Quad Core Processor, 2 GB RAM
So tell me, why is exactly is the iPhone so great?
Droid Does What Jobs Won’t Let You Do.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
You do realize it is the government that allows a business to be a business right? They can and do tell businesses what, when and in some cases, at what price they can sell something and to whom.

You believing anything else is just pure silliness on your part.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to Fiber lover

Re: Google not symmetric?

Maybe you should doing a little reading to further your understanding.

majortom1029

join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY
kudos:1

?

Why is it that when cablevision tried this they got forced to let Verizon pay for it yet time warner does this and they can do what they want?

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to whiteshp

Re: Pot. Kettle. Google.

said by whiteshp:

The tv service is $50 on top of the $70 internet. Voice service is a joke. Honestly there are so many VOIP services out there to choose from. You could get ultra cheap to a more expensive reliable service depending on what you wanted.

No, the TV service is $120/month.
You can't buy it for a penny less.

xenophon

join:2007-09-17
^Wrong. TV and 1GBit Internet combined is $120. So TV is additional $50..

»fiber.google.com/about/


Bugger

@rr.com
reply to skuv

Re: TWC produces the content, so..

Yeah! I demand that Apple releases an Android version of their Maps app or that my copy of Microsoft Office runs natively in Linux!

xenophon

join:2007-09-17
reply to Fiber lover

Re: Google not symmetric?

»www.gfiberforum.com/forum/thread···-or-GPON

quote:
John Toccalino, project manager, explains that being installed in various parts of the city a few huts or nodes called Google Fiber Huts. Inside house the OLT equipment that connect the pairs of fiber, which then hung from utility poles, reach every home. For its explanation, we understand that Google is not using a GPON network like the one in Spain is installing Telefónica.

Google does reach each individual fiber from Google Hut Fiber to the home. The main advantage is that each line is independent and can use their full capacity for a single user. The disadvantage is that a deployment of this type is more expensive than the displays in a tree, as used by Telefonica, in which each fiber coming from the OLT is divided into several stages into sub-segments by splitters, so that all Users are both the same optical signal, but each uses it only for the fraction of time allocated to it.

With this architecture, the network of Google not only provides 1 Gbps to each user, but this is symmetrical, which would be impossible in a GPON deployment, having to share all the users upload rate up to 1, 25 Gbps

WhatNow
Premium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

Sports content

I am not a big sports watching fan so if I was in KC I would not notice if they carried the programing or not. That said any other content beside sports programming should be the producer and the buyers. The reason I make an exception sports is it is simi public. In most cases the local government has provided funding of some type to most teams. High Schools and state colleges public taxes. Our NFL team just asked for $125 mil to upgrade the private stadium. The NBA team plays in the city arena but the team has complete management rights.

I would also agree to the idea the poster suggesting Google should compete for the content.

The best arrangement would be a monopoly dumb pipe from a central POP site to the side of your house like the power company does to the meter. The power provider may be the best choice to provide the dumb pipe fiber system. That way if they provide a power connection they would have to provide a fiber connection in the rural areas. Then any content provider connects at the POP and takes care of all the inside work.


carpetshark3
Premium
join:2004-02-12
Idledale, CO
Doesn't have to be TV. How about allowing others besides Verizon and Apple the same apps on Android cell phones and tablets?

I'd pay for the app, but I am not switching to Verizon.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink
reply to xenophon

Re: Pot. Kettle. Google.

said by xenophon:

^Wrong. TV and 1GBit Internet combined is $120. So TV is additional $50..

»fiber.google.com/about/

Wrong.
You have to pay $120.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
said by elray:

Wrong.
You have to pay $120.

1 gbit internet + beautiful non fuzzy ultra compressed TV for 120 dollars.

Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
reply to Kearnstd

Re: TWC produces the content, so..

said by Kearnstd:

We forced the movie studios to sell off their theaters when the government basically broke up the studio system. But the FTC has no issues letting cable companies own content sources.

That was in the past. National Amusements is the majority owner of Viacom including Paramount Pictures. I do agree that allowing the same company to own both content and distribution (vertical integration) does tend to harm consumers.


Whateverdood

@start.ca
reply to elray

Re: Pot. Kettle. Google.

said by elray:

said by xenophon:

^Wrong. TV and 1GBit Internet combined is $120. So TV is additional $50..

»fiber.google.com/about/

Wrong.
You have to pay $120.

Right... but it includes free 1 GB internet.

Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
reply to xenophon

Re: Google not symmetric?

said by xenophon:


With this architecture, the network of Google not only provides 1 Gbps to each user, but this is symmetrical, which would be impossible in a GPON deployment, having to share all the users upload rate up to 1, 25 Gbps

Actually 1 Gbps symmetrical is possible with a GPON (2.5 Gbps / 1.25 Gbps theoretical) deployment but it might be seriously oversubscribed if 32 customers sharing the same optical fiber all went online at exactly the same time.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to Happydude32

Re: TWC produces the content, so..

So you think Vertical integration is a good thing for the customer?

The customer is all that matters remember that is the purpose of a business.

And breaking content creation away from distro would increase competition and better serve the customer.

Would you agree if the FTC let Walmart buy General Mills and then make all General Mills cereals exclusive to walmart?
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports