dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
36
« TWC
This is a sub-selection from The Great and Powerful Google

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207 to hottboiinnc4

Premium Member

to hottboiinnc4

Re: The Great and Powerful Google

Is Google even getting the opportunity to pay for these channels? It sounds a lot like the issue that Verizon FiOS TV had with the Dolan's refusing to make HD channels available, at any price.
JPL
Premium Member
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA

1 recommendation

JPL

Premium Member

said by jmn1207:

Is Google even getting the opportunity to pay for these channels? It sounds a lot like the issue that Verizon FiOS TV had with the Dolan's refusing to make HD channels available, at any price.

This is exactly what it sounds like. I'm not sure I understand all the other postings talking about Google not wanting to pay for the channels, or pay for right of way... neither has anything to do with this issue! The payment for right of way is between Google and KC. That's what franchise agreements are all about. If Google isn't paying what TWC is for franchise agreements in the area, then TWC should take the case to the city. And nowhere do I see anything in the article that says that Google isn't willing to pay for the channel.

This sounds exactly like the nonsense that CableVision pulled with Verizon and AT&T over MSG and MSG+ HD. In which case, all Google has to do is take it to the FCC. They just need to demonstrate that they will be hurt by not having the RSN and TWC will be forced to hand it over. And since the current FCC policy with regard to loophole exceptions were created because of RSNs, it would really be impossible for Google to NOT prove that they would be hurt by being denied the RSN.

I have my nits with the architecture of Google's move into the fiber arena, but none of that justifies unfair business practices directed against them.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Doesn't matter if Google wants to pay for it or not. TWC should NOT be forced to give their content up. But instead Google wants the FCC to decide and force regulation on them, that should not be there. And if TWC did offer Google a price, Google would still bitch that its not free like Apple did on their "TV" product.

and its not unfair. Google wants it, Google can build their own.
JPL
Premium Member
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA

1 edit

1 recommendation

JPL

Premium Member

said by hottboiinnc4:

Doesn't matter if Google wants to pay for it or not. TWC should NOT be forced to give their content up. But instead Google wants the FCC to decide and force regulation on them, that should not be there. And if TWC did offer Google a price, Google would still bitch that its not free like Apple did on their "TV" product.

and its not unfair. Google wants it, Google can build their own.

The problem with what you've written - WHAT TWC IS DOING IS ILLEGAL. Well, kinda. We had this fight about the terrestrial loophole over the last couple years. Verizon went to the FCC complaining about it, and guess what? They won! The FCC allows for exemptions from it. By what process? The provider who wants access to the channel has to go to the FCC and make their case. So... Google is doing just what the FCC articulated the SHOULD do, and that's considered 'bitchin to the FCC' in your mind? Huh? Google is following the procedure that the FCC laid out for handling such disputes. That's not bitching. That's the process as it's currently laid out in the regulations.

As for the problem with Google building their own... sigh. That's exactly the case that Verizon made with this when they won. They CAN'T create their own! Say Google wanted to start their own RSN. Which teams, exactly, would they be tailored for? Because the RSNs today all are tied to local professional sports teams. Google would need to petition, say, the MLB, get them to agree to a franchise expansion for another KC team, get them to start the team, and THEN Google could get the rights to that team. Wow... yeah, they have the same option... please. They don't.

The FCC held that RSNs specifically hold a very special place in the grand scheme of things. First, they are a totally limited resource. It's not like opening up another pizza place to compete with the one down the street. In this case TWC has a monopoly (which I thought we hated in this country) on regional sports broadcasting. That's what the FCC found - because of the unique nature of RSNs, because they are a fixed resource, and because they have regional appeal, preventing a carrier from having the channel provides an unfair competitive advantage for the provider who owns the channel. Not to mention the fact that the region partially pays for the content on the channel. Think about how much of your tax dollars go to the local professional sports teams. Only allowing one company access to that programming is to give them, in essense, a special tax break that's not open to other providers. Yep... totally fair. Um, no, it's not (which is another reason the FCC ruled as they did).

Besides, this just deals with channels that are fed terrestrially. If TWC beamed that channel off a satellite, they couldn't stop Google from taking it if they wanted to.

Point is... all this has been argued, for years, at the FCC, and the FCC ruled in favor of allowing exemptions to the loophole - exemptions that were tailored pretty specifically to RSNs. Google just has to follow the procedure, submit to the FCC why they're being hurt by not getting this channel (which is a no-brainer for an RSN), and the FCC will force TWC to negotiate with Google, and if Verizon's dealing with CV is any indication, it will happen very, very quickly. In the case with Verizon, the FCC gave CV I think 4 weeks to come to terms with Verizon over the channel.

Not sure what TWC thinks they can gain out of this - they're going to lose this fight. All they've done is delay it a tiny bit. And it puts the lie to their statement that they aren't worried about the impact of Google Fiber in this market. Clearly they are. And they should be.
« TWC
This is a sub-selection from The Great and Powerful Google