dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
907
share rss forum feed
« TWC
page: 1 · 2 · next

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

The Great and Powerful Google

Apparently isn't willing to pay to obtain the sports networks its customers want, so they're crying to Uncle Sam.

Nothing new here.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

1 recommendation

Thats the only way they can play. Ever since Google started this beta network, they've only cried and carried on about how things weren't fair and how they wanted certain things done just for them, but refused to pay. I see this project being sold off in 2 years or being left to rot.


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
I really hate being part of a niche market. I would be happy with this service without the TV bits. TV has nothing to do with internet service.


Alex J

@sunwave.com.br
reply to hottboiinnc

they've only cried and carried on about how things weren't fair and how they wanted certain things done just for them...

How is that different from any other company in this sector? AT&T is the poster child for that kind of behavior. Time Warner Cable as well. Protectionist legacy companies that cry like babies when the subsidies dry up or somebody tries to disrupt the uncompetitive cash party. Google as they grow will become the same thing, but it's good they're throwing a wrench in the works here, and the only people I see crying about Google Fiber are ISP employees.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

1 recommendation

reply to ArrayList
said by ArrayList:

TV has nothing to do with internet service.

Not directly, but it's an additional revenue stream, and that's never a bad thing. They've got to recoup the build costs somehow.

Besides, the sheep will always fall for the "combined bill" marketing ploy, even if they wind up paying more money and/or carrying services they don't need. Because it's so hard to pay an additional bill in this day and age, it requires at least five or six more mouse-clicks!


jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1
reply to hottboiinnc
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.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to Crookshanks
They already claimed that their HSI product would make money. So making money on the TV product is BS. Also if it was that way, they need to un-bundle the 2 products and show the real price of both combined, the same as TV and Telco does. Google fails to do that and in order to have their TV product, you MUST have their HSI product. People on here cried when VZ started forcing its customers to have dial-tone again to get DSL, but it's different with Google and its total BS on this site with the GoogleBoys.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to Alex J
Because Google thinks they're above everyone else regardless of who they are.

you don't see AT&T and Comcast or TWC out crying that they don't want to pay for ROW rights, and want to deploy above where they should on poles just to get free ROWs. You also don't see TWC NOT paying their bills for ROWs, like you do Google.

Google Fiber is nothing more than a beta and will NEVER go anywhere and they're not throwing in a wrench, just more of their BS to get their name out, because Karl can't type fast enough for it.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc:

They already claimed that their HSI product would make money. So making money on the TV product is BS.

????

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. All I said was that selling TV provides them with additional revenue, and that said revenue helps them recoup the build costs faster than they otherwise would.

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply to jmn1207
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.


Alex J

@sunwave.com.br
reply to hottboiinnc

Because Google thinks they're above everyone else regardless of who they are.

And AT&T doesn't behave that way?

you don't see AT&T and Comcast or TWC out crying that they don't want to pay for ROW rights

AT&T cried about that constantly when lobbying for video franchise reform.

What's really driving your hate of Google Fiber? Are you employeed by an ISP? Your venom sounds so personal. So what if it's a beta? It's interesting. Symmetrical 1 Gbps service for seventy bucks! Yeah, let's all get pissed at this outrage! This site's readership is so !@@$% odd.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to hottboiinnc
Easy answer: TV is not a profit center for Google Fiber. It's a "look at this tech and see what it can do" center. Unbundling it would probably result in costs of $70+ per month for TV-only.

Plus, doing TV-only service runs against Google's entire purpose for their fiber network: get more people using the Internet more of the time, so they'll use Google services more. A TV-only product doesn't do this. FTTH is a stupid idea for linear-video-only distribution, something that can be done just as well over satellite or coax. Which is why for Google the prime product in their offering is Internet, not TV.

If you want TV-only service, you have three companies in KC to choose from, and Google doesn't really want your patronage anyway. In the case of Verizon, they just want to raise Internet prices without raising the sticker price of the Internet option, so they started requiring landlines. Similar to what they did with Share Everything for data plans. Google never had the precedent of unbundled TV, so why fault them for not having it when you can get a similar product from Dish, DirecTV or TWC?

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to hottboiinnc
What are TWC's prices for gigabit symmetric FTTH service? Oh, right, I forgot. They don't have even 50M symmetric. Those ROW fees have got to be paid some way or other, even if TWC is paying more for them (and passing the prices on to a semi-captive customer base).

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to elray
Just out of curiosity being I did not click into any links or read more that what was posted above, but did it specifically say Google was not willing to pay to obtain the networks or are you just talking to hear yourself talk again?


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to Crookshanks
He's just a Google hater, apparently.

Apparently he likes lack of choice and monopolies--- OR he's an employee or stockholder of TWC.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to hottboiinnc
No... because they have utility ROW rights!


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to Alex J
He clearly has an axe to grind. Maybe he's a big Apple Fanboi and is opposed to anything Google does on general principle?

What ever the case may be, he's clearly throwing venom at a company who, yes, is in it for the money, but actually wants to revolutionize the industry.... for their own benefits AND ours!
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to Crookshanks
but the fact is they do NOT need the TV income and they're most likely NOT making anything off it. If they were they'd disclose their prices withOUT forced bundling. And its already been said that Google NEVER signed a contract with the actual content owners anyway, they used a company that has mass deals with everyone else.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to KrK
First I don't live in a TWC area any longer, never worked for them either. So just because someone doesn't like Google they now work for them? Yah okay w/e.

and I don't lack options thank you, and neither does anyone else. So stop spreading that lie. I have the choice of HSI and TV and phones. and you should know that monoply means ONE company available. Not when you have 2 or 3 or even more. And EVERYONE has the choice of at least 2 TV providers.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to iansltx
I know TV is not Google's main product, but still forcing bundling still is illegal. And the DOJ and the FTC needs to step up and put the foot up their ass.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to Alex J
ATT does NOT demand to be above the actual requirement for safety of linemen and then demand they will NOT pay them their wages. such as Google did. ATT also is NOT making people beg for services to build "fiberhoods" the same as Google, just to get another Press Release out.

And a beta means Google will NEVER keep this project, the same as the Nexus unlocked phone beta, they dropped that like a rock after it did NOT take off. The same as this will.

And AT&T made it easy for companies like Google to actually enter the TV market. Google didn't have to go to KC they went to the state.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to KrK
And i don't like Apple either thank you. Got any more things I am?

And they do NOT want to revolutionize the industry. This will NOT change anything. If the MSOs wanted to do this they could every easily. The same as with AT&T

And being in Tulsa- this does NOT benefit you.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to KrK
the same as ANYONE ELSE that wants to pay for them. Pay for them or don't use them. It's that easy. Instead Google doesn't think they should have to pay for them.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to iansltx
And yes TWC does have those available, has since the network went FTTN. Just pay for them. Oh wait, that's not the thing anyone wants, they want it for FREE.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to JPL
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.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to hottboiinnc
Clearly personal axe to grind is clouding your objectivity.


techguyga
Premium
join:2003-12-31
Buford, GA
reply to hottboiinnc
Wasn't Gmail originally a beta program?

biochemistry
Premium
join:2003-05-09
92361
reply to hottboiinnc
Where does it say that Google does not want to pay for access to the channel?

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc:

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.


michieru
Premium
join:2009-07-25
Miami, FL
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
reply to KrK
He or she is a Google hater because he states a marketing ploy being made by Google for giving you TV services but only if you purchase internet as well which is also known as tying for the industry.

Also if company A, spent the resources to make and create these local channels and they want Google to pay for them to broadcast these services for their customers then they should pay. If Google does not like the price then move along or increase cost and don't bundle TV with internet.

Makes me wonder if they bundle so they can inflate the numbers of actual internet and tv subscribers...

Oh and once again, kissing any companies ass won't get you anywhere so to shun him or her for stating a marketing ploy does not make him a hater and makes you look like the "fanboi".