Incumbents Blocking Google Fiber Access to Sports Channels? Google Says It's a Problem, Time Warner Cable Says It Isn't 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. In a recent FCC filing, Google complains that they're having a hard time getting access to Time Warner Cable's regional sports network, Metro Sports. Time Warner Cable issued a statement saying they're withholding a portion of Metro Sports content because they're the ones who invested in it locally: “TWC has absolutely offered, and continues to offer, what the FCC describes as Metro Sports’ ‘must-have’ live regional sports programming -- men's and women's Division I basketball -- at fair and reasonable prices. As for the remaining programming on Metro Sports, we have long invested in local programming, and [Google is] welcome to do the same." Google recently struck a deal with Disney for access to all Disney, ABC and ESPN channels, but holes in their channel lineup still remain -- most notably HBO. As for the competitive impact of Google Fiber Time Warner Cable says they aren't worried about it and doubt the service expands beyond Kansas City. The cable operator's primary tactic in the region so far appears to be to lock down as many locals as possible into long-term contracts and hope for the best.
|
 |  |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: Losing battle for Time Warner said by morbo:If so, this means Google will prevail.
Probably. But until then, TWC gets the advantage for anyone who "must" have that content that they aren't initially sharing. It's a stalling tactic. It's not likely to impact the eventual successor failure of Google's endeavors, but it's still a paper cut. Enough of them and it does hurt. | |
| | | | | Re: Losing battle for Time Warner The system is/was a failure from the start. It's only a beta project that more than likely will be shut down after 2 years. It's NEVER going to expand past what it is, and there is a 99% chance that Surewest will end up taking it over or it will rot later. | |
|
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. | |
| | | | Re: The Great and Powerful Google 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. | |
| | |  FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: The Great and Powerful Google 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. | |
| | | | Reviews:
 ·Frontier Communi..
| Re: The Great and Powerful Google said by FBGuy: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! | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Great and Powerful Google 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. | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| Re: The Great and Powerful Google 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. | |
| | | | | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: The Great and Powerful Google 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
| |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Great and Powerful Google 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: The Great and Powerful Google Clearly personal axe to grind is clouding your objectivity. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: The Great and Powerful Google Uh huh.
Sure, whatever you say. Not the rantings or anything. | |
|
| | | | | | | | 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. | |
|
| | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| 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? | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: The Great and Powerful Google 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. | |
|
| | | | they've only cried and carried on about how things weren't fair and how they wanted certain things done just for them... | |
| | | | | | Re: The Great and Powerful Google 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. | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Great and Powerful Google 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
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. | |
| | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: The Great and Powerful Google 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
| |
| | | | | | | | | Re: The Great and Powerful Google 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. | |
| | | | | | | |  ThespisI'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX | Re: The Great and Powerful Google said by hottboiinnc:And being in Tulsa- this does NOT benefit you.
Being in Cleveland, this does NOT harm you.
What's your point?
--
Fast. Cheap. Safe.
Pick two... | |
|
| | | | | | | 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. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: The Great and Powerful Google Wasn't Gmail originally a beta program? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Great and Powerful Google 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. | |
|
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | No... because they have utility ROW rights! | |
| | | | | | | | Re: The Great and Powerful Google 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. | |
| | | | | | |  XiodenPremium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1 | Re: The Great and Powerful Google Yea, and all those companies likely to be laying fiber down in Chicago soon should have to pay for that too. I mean, why should the city allow a company to do something that benefits the city without making them pay an arm and a leg too? | |
|
| |  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | 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. | |
| | | | JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:2 | Re: The Great and Powerful Google 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. | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Great and Powerful Google 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. | |
| | | | | | JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:2
1 edit | Re: The Great and Powerful Google 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. | |
|
| | | | Where does it say that Google does not want to pay for access to the channel? | |
|
| | | 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? | |
|
| | TWC TWC should spin those channels over to its former Parent company; TW and let them bring in the $$$$. Time Warner owns a HUGE amount of networks; including HBO. So I wouldn't be surprised if they don't carry that either.
And Google knew about these "problems" before. And I agree with TWC. They want access; they need to pay. The same as any other carrier- you don't see Dish out crying because they don't won't pay what AMC wants for that network, or AT&T out crying about Hallmark.
Its time for Google to stand up on their own two feet and move on without them. The people will decide if its worth getting at that point. And Google should be smacked around for requiring to purchase Internet if the customer just wants TV. Illegal bundling. | |
| |
See 31 replies to this post | |
| | Who cares about the TV when you've got gigabit? Really, With a 1g net connection you can watch anything you'd need and be able to order a pair of rabbit ears online. | |
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Re: Who cares about the TV when you've got gigabit? Google will sell more internet connections by offering a complete TV package for sale. If Google can bust a content monopoly while improving the internet access market, good for them and good for everyone.
If Google only sold TV on their fiber optic line, I'd be upset. | |
|
| | buy fios Google should just buy Verizon Fios network, since they have agreements in place, and because they are not expanding it, Google would | |
| Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| winning side.. Google is on the winning side.. while Verizon sold out to the lowest common denominator of greed, google can stay true to the purpose of being and ISP more than a content provider.. if the nasty cable companies don't want to play fair.. there's a high likelihood the consumers will find ways of getting access to what they want... through legit means if possible, but let's make no mistake about WHAT the killer app is for GIGABIT internet... these companies are very nieve to think that google will care about their content enough to police it any better than they do on their ISP networks.. | |
| |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | Re: winning side.. You do know google is a for profit company? and their end goal is the same as verizon's? | |
| | | Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: winning side.. said by tshirt:You do know google is a for profit company? and their end goal is the same as verizon's?
Based on the geography covered and the investment made (upwards of 600 million + when Google actually connects registered subscribers)-- they're not gonna profit for a LONG, LONG time-- read years.. since they built from SCRATCH and not on a long-standing fiber network since the late 1990s in most major metro area central offices and profits hoarded on the old Ma-Bell years. Google's probably about a 20 year old company and have revenue nearing some OIL companies.. not bad for 20 years in business. Google has much cleaner a reputation than ALL telcos combined or separate...
End goals the same? Really? All for profit companies are about making money, duh.. but there's a serious lacking of ethics in the top management of Verizon these days.. can't really say that about google.. aside from caving on censorship, they've not really turned in the direction most telco and cableco companies have.. they still are truer to a mission of massive highspeed fiber connections to the country (residential and business & government alike) even if almost nobody else is at the same high-level.. STARTING at 1 gigabit symmetric. Just about no other company can say that..
Just about ALL the ISPs in this country favor OBSCENE PROFITS over innovation. So, basically the same, but not the same.. Google knows diversification AND innovative spirit.. the REST? -- put to shame.. | |
| | | | tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: winning side.. So you recognize this experiment is not for profit, and thus plays by different rules, had the incumbents been given free RoW power and rackspace in public buildings/areas, there own city inspectors and traffic coordinators and FREE citywide franchises rights that existing companies begged and paid for and the right to walk away in 2 years, without penalty, should problems occur, finished or not, along with an open checkbook from the head office all ISP's additudes and rates would probably more closely mimic google.
OR (if we wait 20+ years) google or their offspring may be just as driven to make the quarterly and annual figures for their ISP business. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: winning side.. said by tshirt: So you recognize this experiment is not for profit, and thus plays by different rules, had the incumbents been given free RoW power and rackspace in public buildings/areas, there own city inspectors and traffic coordinators and FREE citywide franchises rights that existing companies begged and paid for and the right to walk away in 2 years, without penalty, should problems occur, finished or not, along with an open checkbook from the head office all ISP's additudes and rates would probably more closely mimic google.
OR (if we wait 20+ years) google or their offspring may be just as driven to make the quarterly and annual figures for their ISP business.
Google PAYS for pole connections & ROW access to string fiber.. so that is a myth.. but where you also go astray is the comparisons of what Google's negotiated compared with the incumbent Telco AND Cableco's benefits by local communities.. Telcos have taken BILLIONS of dollars in subsidies, tax breaks, sweetheart deals over the years in the hopes of getting customers served better.. and aside from lots of northeast build, that's largely NOT happened.. and places it has happened, the costs were not really worth the pitiful state broadband is in today with a lack of competition. Even the Verizon FIOS deal gives the company the ability to reneg on completing it's commitments so there isn't much difference... I think one key difference might be that status of the network.. Verizon' wouldn't abandon it's infrastructure (if not sold off to a company they load up on debt first). There's been no mention who would get the infrastructure if Google cancels their plans and it seems an open question. One I would have wanted to know the answer to before making the deal.
The google deal isn't that good to incumbent companies, or the current incumbents would have jumped on it years ago... but why should they? They can fleece the customer base w/o much recourse from the citizenry.. and it's that APATHY which gets no innovation done.. Let's be clear about what we've seen from Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and a plethora if telco & cable companies.. they spent MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in lobbying federal, state and local government to protect their monopoly and duopolies to the tune of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS(direct subsidy and cost savings).. you'd think a deal could have been reached to BUILD instead of CORRUPT government and keep the monopoly / duopoly in place... but NO... they had to have not just cake, but the whole damned bakery (just to extend a metaphor) and eat it too.. LOBBY, and NOT spend money on infrastructure... and if they did.. cherry pick the best areas--that's why you primarily see the best broadband in the northeast.. uptake rates for it are through the roof.. maybe 90 - 95% of wireless and wireline customers subscribe to two or more services; either voice,wireless, video, and internet access... compare to the southwest where uptake is 85% or less.. for one or more services simultaneously.
Google is fighting the usage based billing system which disadvantages outside providers of content and steals from consumers by overcharging them while blocking innovation. If successful, this will spur on communties to draw the line on innovate & build or get out of the way.... | |
|
| | wow that's crap!, Timewarner is nothing but a bully, their trying to stop Google by the only way they can sports.. I hope Google shows Timewaner who's boss | |
| | | hmm Google should buy Verizon fiber fios build.. but the thing is will they? doubtful, then again maybe not.., who knows, either way Google is a game changer and we don't see them that often anymore
AT&T, Verizon and others believe they are innovators but they never really made anything within the last 10 years..
AT&T/ Ma-Bell did create some fascinating things back in the day but charged people for it..
now days its a different story, these 2 company's would rather increase rates than innovate or compete with each other
Google on the other hand is a powerhouse if they wanted to start a fiber build they can do that, their is nothing stopping them from going in to new york or where ever as long as the population is right
Google is using this as a testbed not only for apps, developers, but also to see what people could use this speed for and see if its a viable thing for them to pursue in the future (long term) it would still take many years for them to even decide if they will expand.. once and if they do fiber will possibly will drop quite a bit, we have seen this in the last 5 years if the price is still dropping and copper is rising the time is coming, but we may have to wait at least 10 years to see the actual results..
our world is changing don't think just because cable wire is their now that it will be the same within 10 years.. a lot can happen, and with that I hope to see the cable cos actually fall | |
|
| |
|
|
·
