camperjust visiting this planet Premium Member join:2010-03-21 Bethel, CT |
camper
Premium Member
2015-Apr-20 12:11 pm
If the cable-based ISPs are doing such a great job...Why are all these places trying to lure more competition into the states and cities? | |
|
| |
Re: If the cable-based ISPs are doing such a great job...That seems obvious I see new fiber being run on poles in my town. I think TW is getting ready to expand (I know Verizon isn't spending a penny more). It seems that "competition" in telco world is to simply match or slightly exceed what is being offered, not really wipe out the competition. Except for Comcast stepping up in some vague announcement, I don't see anything meaningful out of the bell kids. Google is never going to be full coverage, but they are certainly causing the market some stir. | |
|
| | KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2015-Apr-20 1:06 pm
Re: If the cable-based ISPs are doing such a great job...said by elefante72:Google is never going to be full coverage, but they are certainly causing the market some stir. Thankfully sometimes that is all it takes, A fire to be lit under some asses to get results. | |
|
| |
Flyonthewall to camper
Anon
2015-Apr-20 12:43 pm
to camper
SHHH! They'll HEAR you... | |
|
| tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
to camper
Perhaps google's own words help explain,
Public officials have been warning for weeks that Google Fiber's plans for the Portland area have been at risk because of the state's tax methodology. But Google Fiber itself had said nothing publicly until Thursday's letter, which warns "the provisions in the bill referenced above leave significant barriers to investment in place."
So the existing franchises have be struggling under ALL the poorly thought out regulations for years, watch as intel and nike and data centers and shipping, etc. got tax breaks repeatly, while their industry was stifled with more taxes and regulations. Now on Google's command advanced telecom networks will have an equal footing, and are at last more likely to be treated as a desirable industry. We know Comcast has been working towards a game changer (2/2gig), and if they can quickly deploy, can beat GF to the punch. They will still have a somewhat unlevel play field, not being given space next to city buildings, or cabinets along the street (one space per block and surprise google uses/reserves them all (I bet many will be empty, but why play fair?) Like a lot of cities, the many of barriers to faster services are not the existing carriers but the city and state demands, taxes and fees. I'm hopeful that Portland leaders can avoid stepping on their own appendages this time having previously forced earlier muni/broadband attempts into early graves. | |
|
| F100 join:2013-01-15 Durham, NC Alcatel-Lucent G-010G-A (Software) pfSense Pace 5268AC
1 edit |
to camper
This coming from the state that won't even let you pump your own Gas. » www.oregonlive.com/opini ··· her.htmlMaybe they should have said it's for the children like they do for other stuff when they need an excuse. It's only because Google called their bluff and that's why they got bypassed by GF. Notice, not a single politician voted against the changes, even if they didn't agree with it. They didn't want to be known as the ones that prevented GF from coming to Oregon. edit: to add from today's news links, "The Oregonian reports the secondary bill used to correct the language has sailed through both the state Senate and the House, with approving votes of 30-0 and 60-0 respectively. Portland has also already changed its transportation regulations to allow Google Fiber to install 200 utility cabinets along city streets, in order to help with the potential buildout." | |
|
| | Kommie2 (banned) join:2003-05-13 united state |
Kommie2 (banned)
Member
2015-Apr-20 2:13 pm
Re: If the cable-based ISPs are doing such a great job...Easy way to create jobs. | |
|
| | | tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2015-Apr-20 3:14 pm
Re: If the cable-based ISPs are doing such a great job...said by Kommie2:Easy way to create jobs. Perfect career for those most likely to be huffing gas fumes anyway. Quite a few of the "pump attendants" I've seen in OR certain look like that even in otherwise 'fancy' stations/minimart/restaurant stations. freaks me out a little to pull in for gas, and have a guy who looks like he sleeps behind the station hold out a hand for your credit card. Difficult to get these guys to NOT overfill the tank, or try a swipe the card twice, so I end up having to stand and watch them anyway. Some will LET YOU wash your own windows, some insist they do it. and check the fluids too (like really full service USED to be) Way too complicated for the value received. and I won't tip for something I'd RATHER do myself. | |
|
| | |
to F100
Without going too off-topic here, we really, really don't want to pump our own gas. No one here buys the argument that it would be cheaper/better in any meaningful way, so we'd just lose out with nothing to gain for it. Any other rationale is at best secondary. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
to camper
Better yet why are they doing this just to lure Google. Why not try and lure anyone and everyone? | |
|
| | fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2015-Apr-21 10:21 am
Re: If the cable-based ISPs are doing such a great job...said by battleop:Better yet why are they doing this just to lure Google. Why not try and lure anyone and everyone? What makes you think they aren't? The language of the bill is not specific to google. My guess is, politicians would welcome any fiber provider willing to provide service up to 1G and more. | |
|
| | | |
Re: If the cable-based ISPs are doing such a great job...Because they sat on their asses for years trying to milk as much as they can out of current providers. Now that there is a new shiny toy out there they want they are willing to fix it. They should have fixed this long ago. | |
|
| | | | fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2015-Apr-21 11:40 am
Re: If the cable-based ISPs are doing such a great job...said by battleop:Because they sat on their asses for years trying to milk as much as they can out of current providers. Now that there is a new shiny toy out there they want they are willing to fix it. They should have fixed this long ago. Agreed. Nonetheless, the language of the bill is not specific to google. Any provider that meets the requirements could get the same benefit as google. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: If the cable-based ISPs are doing such a great job...It may not specifically mention Google but we all know it's being written for Google. Come to think of it... It almost sounds like the very exact thing people complain about around here. Sounds a lot like (Insert Large ISP) guiding (Insert State) law makers to craft laws that fit their agenda. | |
|
| | | | | | fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2015-Apr-21 3:16 pm
Re: If the cable-based ISPs are doing such a great job...said by battleop:It may not specifically mention Google but we all know it's being written for Google. Come to think of it... It almost sounds like the very exact thing people complain about around here. Sounds a lot like (Insert Large ISP) guiding (Insert State) law makers to craft laws that fit their agenda. Agreed. Interesting how google gets a free pass when they do it, but condemnation rains / reigns (?) when AT&T, VZ, or Comcast do it | |
|
| | | | | tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
to fg8578
said by fg8578:Agreed. Nonetheless, the language of the bill is not specific to google. not this bill but Portland is specifically leasing property next to fire stations/city building ONLY to google, and the new allowance for street side cabinets are also Google exclusive. Just like pole fees and RoW charges all these fees and restrictions had a certain purpose before (pole fees pay for pole replacement, area set aside by fire stations were for expansion or use during emergencies) streets with no cabinets may be safety ,beautification, or allowing for widening . ALL considered NESSESARY until GF demanded exemptions, and all MAY have a great future cost to replace at the citizens expense. Is the glittering jewel that GF is dangling so mesmerizing that there is so little concern about the can that they are starting to kick down the road FOR Google (also a mega-corp) will people be hating and cursing them when these bills become due in 5-10-20 years? | |
|
| | | | | | fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2015-Apr-22 1:24 pm
Re: If the cable-based ISPs are doing such a great job...said by tshirt:Is the glittering jewel that GF is dangling so mesmerizing that there is so little concern about the can that they are starting to kick down the road FOR Google (also a mega-corp) will people be hating and cursing them when these bills become due in 5-10-20 years? Good point -- have you spoken to your city council member about your concerns? | |
|
| | | | | | | tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2015-Apr-22 2:24 pm
Re: If the cable-based ISPs are doing such a great job...said by fg8578:Good point -- have you spoken to your city council member about your concerns? I live away from the city so I would instead speak to the county council and state reps (both hear for me more often than some would like.) The concerns are much like what I say here Is a need unfilled, that is so important Gov't MUST step in?, IS gov't advantaging one business at the expense of others or the public? because I believe gov't should be the court of last resort, not the lifelong nipple you attach yourself to at birth. And so we have laws that don't prevent muni's but limit them to money separate from other Gov't functions (can't use PUD/public electric rates to subsidize broadband, because electric rate should pay ONLY for providing electricity) also GoogleFiber has so far chosen not to make a stand in Washington, but I would great object to them receiving special treatment. I'm not real happy that boeing gets huge tax breaks either even though keeping them here (mostly) generates far more taxes /income then not having them here. (I certainly have benefited both directly and indirectly and don't HATE profitable businesses) | |
|
| F100 join:2013-01-15 Durham, NC Alcatel-Lucent G-010G-A (Software) pfSense Pace 5268AC
|
to camper
If Oregon, and Portland in particular wants High Speed internet as an important city resource, then they can make it possible for Google or any Company to build these kinds of networks. They just have to make it worthwhile if they want to keep these beauty requirements. That or build their own like Wilson NC or Chattanooga TN. | |
|
|
What about the underserved?Is the goal of the Gov pushing ultra speed to a few or driving Internet benefits to the masses. | |
|
| fg8578 join:2009-04-26 San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2015-Apr-21 10:26 am
Re: What about the underserved?said by FactChecker:Is the goal of the Gov pushing ultra speed to a few or driving Internet benefits to the masses. If the requirements included 100% service even to high cost rural areas, you'd probably get no takers. Such a requirement, while well-intentioned, would probably result in nobody getting fiber-based 1G services. So is it better to serve a few (with the ultimate goal of 100% coverage at some indefinite point in the future), or nobody (just to stand on principle)? | |
|
w0go.O join:2001-08-30 Springfield, OR |
w0g
Member
2015-Apr-20 3:43 pm
not sure what they did butthey should have wrote the specific exemption to say only fiber optics gets any type of tax break, period, that way older antiquated techs like cable and DSL "upto 1Gbps" cannot qualify. the obvious reason is people truly only want a next gen network not "same old" "barely an upgrade" "full of quality and capacity issues." | |
|
WhatNow Premium Member join:2009-05-06 Charlotte, NC |
WhatNow
Premium Member
2015-Apr-20 7:41 pm
monopolyI think everybody is going to find the cities have traded one monopoly for another. I have no problem with GF especially it lit a fire under the other ISPs. GF is showing it is not easy to provide fiber to a big city.
If would be better to build one fiber network for the last mile and then let every ISP that wants to service customers in the city lease a single fiber to service that customer with content or just internet service. It is unlikely you will ever see more then 1 to 3 fiber networks built on top of each other in a city. If GF moves in you may see the old ISPs / cable companies leave. The other problem is only some of the big cites are getting GF. Smaller cities and towns are not getting anything unless they build a muni system. | |
|
|
Mike Rogoway
Anon
2015-Apr-20 7:45 pm
Other citiesJust to be clear -- I haven't seen any indication that Google Fiber is less likely to pursue the suburbs now than it was when it announced the Portland area was a target market 14 months ago. Just because it doesn't have the franchise agreements yet doesn't necessarily mean it won't pursue them later. -- Mike | |
|
|
freakazoid
Anon
2015-Apr-21 9:07 am
PhoenixAny word on their expansion to Phoenix? I know of an ISP located there who could really use a kick in the pants. | |
|
| |
Re: PhoenixSupposed to be announced later this year. I think probably sometime in the fall. | |
|
|
|