 | | 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. | |
|
 | |
|  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | 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-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/ | |
|
| | | | Re: Sorry, but no I agree.
I don't like government entities choosing winners and losers. Give them both the same agreement and let the free market hash it out. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Sorry, but no LOL
You really believe we have a true "free market" system? | |
|
| | | If I were one of the KC city fathers, that's exactly what I'd tell AT*T and TW.
I'd also tell them that they've had many years to invest in better plant and equipment in KC, but "You have what you have". | |
|
| | 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. | |
|
| LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | 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.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.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/ | |
|
| | |
| | |
| | | WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Re: Fair is Fair. With AT&T and other Telcos the have to provide POTS service to everyone. The cable companies only have to provide it to the city limits. They can move outside the limits of their franchise if it will be profitable but not required.
Google did get get a lot of exemptions like pole placement and I am guessing most of their cable placement will get speedy approval where AT&T and TWC have to go through the normal procedures.
I agree they need to get their act together and put fiber in and compete or they need one physical network fiber provider and then the customer chooses the content provider. If you have one communications connection provider and it is a private company you have to have a very good watchdog commission to make sure the private company gives excellent service as the network get older and needs repair, maintenance, and upgrades. I would suggest the Fiber provider only provide one or two terminated fibers to the house and let the content providers provide the end electronics and content. That way anybody that wants to provide content has a chance to sell to customers. The customer would pay the fiber provider separate from the content provider.
If the Fiber provider is a city department it becomes like the other utility departments some cities do a great job and other cities let their water, sewer, power, streets fall apart.
As you can see the right of way is getting crowded. With Google a house may have a connection to Google, AT&T and TWC plus any satellite connections. They also have power, water, sewer and maybe gas connection. | |
|
| |  marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | said by Linklist:http://professional.wsj.com/article_email/SB10000872396390443862604578030671101065746-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwMTAwODE3Wj.html
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. Just a note, TWC already had this deal before Google every even talked about fiber. AT&T has had the deal on the table waiting for their signature for about 5 years. Kansas City taxpayers have no say in the matter, as both deals were brokered at the state level.
Also, Missouri has a professional services clause to its contracts. You do not have to put ISP services out to bid as long as a state level contract is in place (which TWC, AT&T, and Charter all have).
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
| | | 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. | |
|
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Did AT&T and Time Warner Cable make franchise agreements with Kansas City? Contract law is fair, if AT&T doesn't like the deal they made then they can make a new one when it expires.
It would be better to have lower barriers to entry, I think everyone should get the perks Google got, except for cherry picking. AT&T would love to switch wires for data-capped towers. That wouldn't be in Kansas City's best interest. | |
|
 elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand | Same Perks? That's socialism. | |
|
|  mr seanProfessional InfidelPremium,ExMod 2001-07
join:2001-04-03
N. Absentia
kudos:1 | Re: Same Perks? Now, now...
Corporations may be people too, but when the wealth is redistributed to them its called a subsidy or an abatement...not entitlement.
--
How you can make the world a Better Place | |
|
 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. | |
|
| | | 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. | |
|
| | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | 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. | |
|
| | | | | 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. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Competition what purpose does having a file on > 300 million people do for a private company that doesn't sell products to all of those people? | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Competition said by ArrayList:what purpose does having a file on > 300 million people do for a private company that doesn't sell products to all of those people?
That's a great question. Google must have some reason. A lot of it is advertising. The more then know, the more they can charge for more accurate advertising. | |
|
| | | | | | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·T-Mobile US
| Re: Competition said by silbaco: The more then know, the more they can charge for more accurate advertising.
this doesn't exactly sound like a horrible idea. | |
|
| | | | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Google isn't handing over anything secretly. When law enforcement interferes with their customers, they tell them and it gets documented here:
»www.google.com/transparencyrepor···ernment/
Does AT&T have a similar list? | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Competition Google is not providing internet to the public yet. Once they do we will know more.
No idea what At&t has. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Competition Huh? They have tons of public user data, from search history, to email, to social media, mobile data/location data from Android users, etc | |
|
| | 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. | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·Windstream
| 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. | |
|
| | | said by Gozo: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.
Are you claiming that AT&T and TWC aren't receiving government subsidies? That sure sounds like what you're saying.
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=rasZzenuYxI | |
|
| | 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. | |
|
|
See 42 replies to this post |
|
| | 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... | |
|
|
See 27 replies to this post |
|
| | 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. | |
|
| | | Re: Google playing games again. said by ltecajun:"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.
Care to back any of that up with facts? | |
|
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. | |
|
| | They had their chance, they didn't do it The first person into a new market always has an advantage. They at any time could have offered gigabit without caps and negotiated deals with the city for any regulatory breaks. They chose not to.
Someone else beat them to it, now they lose. Notice how they are not taking advantage of google targeting a single city by immediately offering gigabit without caps in other cities using existing infrastructure to negotiate deals. | |
|
| Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | Re: They had their chance, they didn't do it said by insomniac84: Notice how they are not taking advantage of google targeting a single city by immediately offering gigabit without caps in other cities using existing infrastructure to negotiate deals.
Exactly, these companies have never had consumer interests as a priority. And the way they work, they never will.
Too bad for them the internet is an information technology, and even if they are not advancing at the same rate Moore's law advances, it doesn't mean that the technology to keep up with Moore's law will stop existing.
Progress waits for nobody. | |
|
| | | said by insomniac84:The first person into a new market always has an advantage. They at any time could have offered gigabit without caps and negotiated deals with the city for any regulatory breaks. They chose not to.
Someone else beat them to it, now they lose. Notice how they are not taking advantage of google targeting a single city by immediately offering gigabit without caps in other cities using existing infrastructure to negotiate deals.
In this case, the late mover has the advantage of lower network gear and fiber costs, as well as not having a workforce and farming everything out to largely non-union, lower paid workers.
The legacy infrastructure that the telcos have is a disadvantage because they can't easily ditch their copper plant because some phone services don't work over VOIP.
Since the phone service is regulated for them, makes it hard to ditch some of the existing plant.
Google has an inherent advantage over cable/telco in that they are willing to build their own gear and do custom things to reduce costs/improve performance - the cable and telcos only buy gear and pay someone to install into their network. | |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Google promised something in return... ...for an "unlevel playing field": gigabit to the areas who wanted it, for less than TWC charges for 50/5 on-promo.
If TWC and AT&T are promising FTTH builds with comparable speeds in return for the same things Google is getting...and if there are penalties (like being forced to pay back franchise fees or the coax/telco infrastructure gets repo'd by the city) if they don't meet their promises, fine. Give 'em the perks that Google has gotten.
But if TWC or AT&T are going to turn around and use those perks to offer the same services at roughly the same price (or maybe they'll try predatory pricing to make sure that GFiber fails), then the incentives (and that's all these perks are) have failed. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
| | Reality check This is just another "hey let's try this" by Google. They do this all the time. Remember how Google was going to sell their own phones?
I think there's a 90% chance that this Google experiment will remain just that. | |
|
|  Bahamut XPremium
join:2000-12-09
Fort Worth, TX | Re: Reality check said by MyDogHsFleas: Remember how Google was going to sell their own phones? »play.google.com/store/devices?fe···selector
Phone, check.
Tablet, check.
No, they don't sell service with thier own phone, but it does look like they do sell thier own phones...
--
I work at T-Mobile. I play games and enjoy time off of work. I've been a member here longer than I've worked there. I have my own opinions, they do not hold anything to T-Mobile USA, etc etc etc...  | |
|
| | drhPremium
join:2008-10-20
Olympia, WA | Re: Reality check You beat me to this... I went to login and post this same info but had to take a phone call. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Reality check Yep, you are correct. I was remembering when they sold their first phone, it flopped, and they quit for quite a while. They have started up again.
I still think this fiber experiment is quite likely to not expand much. | |
|
 alchav
join:2002-05-17
Palm Desert, CA |  Last Mile Plan still missing!
| |
|
| | | Re: Last Mile Plan still missing! I am astounded how shills for the cable and telco duopoly can make their ($$$Paid$$$) excuses for these plutocrat lamebrains.
UNDERGROUND? Both sewer and water are undeground EVERYWHERE! Guaranteed! Fiber in the same place will not send water or (yuck!) pouring out your connection. They did it in France and other places without any problem.
These telco/cable clowns can make endless excuses, but they cannot execute! To make it simple: they are greedy, stupid morons who cannot and will not make it happen, while their monopoly loads them with profits and bonuses, without COMPETITION! To them "investment" means greasing up local politicians! | |
|
| |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | Re: Last Mile Plan still missing! NM | |
|
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | So lets summarize all arguments that are Pro-TW&ATT When AT&T and TW are completely and utterly raping consumers and the companies locked out any and all competition? - ::crickets::
When AT&T and TW are behind in the race because of their own stupidity and greed? - WAHHHHHHHHH
Everyone crying about how "unfair" this is should shut up until they can explain where they were when these two companies shot down any and all consumer friendly laws that have come up around the country.
Oh, suddenly no response? Shocking | |
|
| brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: So lets summarize all arguments that are Pro-TW&ATT It's the usual corporate shills and douchbags on this site. | |
|
| | | | Re: So lets summarize all arguments that are Pro-TW&ATT said by brad:It's the usual corporate shills and douchbags on this site.
Couldn't have said it better myself | |
|
 rchandraStargate Universe fanPremium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105 | Incumbent ISPs such as TW, Verizon, AT&T... ...also oppose muni fiber efforts, despite not wanting to provide competitive services. Instead, the municipalities had to step in where they (the incumbents) fell short. | |
|
| | There IS a fair and equitable solution... ... and it goes something like THIS:
AT&T? TWC? Here's the NOC Google built on city property, and here's a nice shiny rack waiting for your fiber switch. Your fiber bundles can enter over there, and run through this conduit. Install your 10/40/100GigE fiber switches & routers, install the cross-connects and peer with the customers, and you can sell services to Google's customers over the same fiber Google laid.
Good luck trying to get anyone to pay $54/month for 18mbps down/1mbps up Uverse FTTH, though, considering that anyone with fiber there can get faster internet connectivity for free, and a few bucks more will buy them connectivity that makes 18/1 look like dialup by comparison.
TWC? With some HyperMegacheapSupermassivelyDiscountedChannelBundling, you might be able to compete if you charge $50/month more than Google for TV, but deliver every premium and HD channel known to exist somewhere in the free world, and offer the channels at Blu-Ray bitrates with 32-bit 192khz PCM surround audio.
Oh, you mean you just want the right to cherry-pick FTTC and cable markets? Go to hell, and come back when your plans for the markets you want to cherry-pick include gigabit fiber to the home and open peering with Google (so Google can offer internet and TV over YOUR fiber, just like you can offer internet and TV over theirs). Fair is fair, after all... | |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | We are NOT talking about ISPs here We are talking about video providers. There is no requirement whatsoever for an ISP to get a franchise agreement in Missouri. The agreements only pertain to video service. AT&T and TWC could build whatever ISP infrastructure they want in KCMO, cherrypick anywhere they want, and abandon it after 3 months. There's nothing KCMO could do to stop them.
This is only about the TV agreement.
Which is why this is only grandstanding. Missouri has a very generous statewide cable franchise. That statewide franchise, which both AT&T and TWC have signed on to, allows both of those incumbents to ignore the city completely. They can cherrypick neighborhoods without penalty and back out whenever they want. In other words, both TWC and AT&T already have a better deal than Google. This is all just PR and nothing more.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|
|
|
AT&T and TW can