Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google

Charter: City Giving Google Fiber Unfair Edge (courier-journal.com) 110

Posted by msmash from the who-is-at-fault dept.
An anonymous reader writes: Louisville's largest cable and internet provider says the city is giving Google Fiber an unfair advantage, and it wants Mayor Greg Fischer to step in and ease key regulations in the coming weeks. In a July 28 letter, Charter Communications told Fischer the city's separate franchise agreements allow Google to operate under less burdensome rules despite the two companies offering local customers similar services. "There is no justification for different regulatory treatment," said Jason Keller, Charter's government liaison. The letter was addressed to Fischer, the 26-member Metro Council and more than five dozen other mayors representing smaller suburban cities. Charter representatives claim unlike Google, it is obligated to pay money to the city above and beyond the millions in tax proceeds Louisville receives; to provide free internet and cable television to dozens of city-owned buildings; and provide costly government channels, as well as a studio for public access channels. Kellie Watson, Fischer's general counsel, said in a statement that Charter "raised some interesting issues and ideas" but that the administration will need to consult with the county attorney's office given the franchise agreement involves federal regulations.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Charter: City Giving Google Fiber Unfair Edge More

Charter: City Giving Google Fiber Unfair Edge

Comments Filter:

  • The headline should read; (Score:4, Funny)

    by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) on Monday August 01, 2016 @12:26PM (#52622391)
    Google Ubers Charter.

    • Re:The headline should read; (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Shortguy881 ( 2883333 ) on Monday August 01, 2016 @12:46PM (#52622533)
      While I like Google Fiber, I do agree that Google Fiber and Charter should be playing by the same rules from a regulatory standpoint. Charter service sucks, so Google Fiber will most likely win on its own merit, but this kind of preferential treatment is a bad stance for the city to take.

      • Re:The headline should read; (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 01, 2016 @01:04PM (#52622695)
        I don't believe they should play by the same rules. You see, Charter, like cable companies most places in the US, was granted a monopoly by the city for cable services. Nobody else can compete with them in their region. Since Google uses fiber (like telcos use copper or fiber), they CAN compete since they are not granted a city-wide monopoly. If Charter wants to use the same regulatory environment that Google uses then they need to open up their infrastructure to competitors and give up their city granted monopoly. Until they do that - they should operate under different rules. After all those "expensive studios", free access to government buildings, etc. were in return for that monopoly. Give Google a monopoly on the area and you can get concessions like that from them. Until then - Charter should shut up.

        • You see, Charter, like cable companies most places in the US, was granted a monopoly by the county for cable services.

          FTFY

          • Depending on where you live, city is the appropriate descriptor. Anecdotally, the city next to mine has a different cable company than the ones (I actually have more than one) available to me. Both cities are in the same county.
        • That's not how it works, but its cute that you think so. It's a contract on exclusive rights to the current wire to the home (given to the cable company for installing and maintaining the wires). Any cable operator can come in and run their own wires on top and compete. This is really expensive to do, so most companies don't bother with it except in very dense urban areas, as it can be worth it. This is exactly what google is doing. As the new wires still fall under city/county control, Google has to enter

          • In most cases, that's correct. It's also correct that cable companies typically solicit and receive "incentives" (a lot of money) from the county or independent city in which they install, offsetting the installation expense. This makes it a very low-risk proposition, with the only variable being subscriber interest rather than direct competition. The reason that cable companies can demand this is because one county or city did it initially, effectively making counties compete with each other for attenti

      • Re: The headline should read; (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's not really the same, cable and phone companies built their nerworks with your tax dollars. Google is paying their own way.

  • This will get interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ken Hansen ( 3612047 ) on Monday August 01, 2016 @12:32PM (#52622427)
    Because the city offered Charter a monopoly on certain services in the city, the city was able to demand certain concessions from Charter - by letting Google break Charter's monopoly, the city can no longer demand those concessions... Bye-bye public access, bye-bye free internet for city offices, schools, etc.

  • Charter is probably right (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mi ( 197448 ) <slashdot-2017q4@virtual-estates.net> on Monday August 01, 2016 @12:33PM (#52622431) Homepage Journal

    The reason our choice of communication-providers is so limited aren't the companies — those are as hungry for our dollars as ever — but the local governments [wired.com].

    They've created these barriers over the years and were happy to milk them. Now Google comes along and it is cool and persuasive, so, instead of honestly removing the regulatory burdens for all, they find a way to ease them just for one company.

    This is "crony capitalism", which has about as much to do with capitalism, as a guinea pig has to do with pork... Some may even call it Fascism [townhall.com].

    Of course, Charter did not mind the situation themselves — for as long as their de-facto monopoly was not threatened. But we — the consumers — kept losing...

    • This is "crony capitalism"

      Is there another kind? I mean, outside the classroom? You gotta figure that even the voters who always reelect their favorite politicians are also looking for a piece of the action (just bring home the bacon). Cronyism for everybody! Even under communism, without a little lube, nothing would get done.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mi ( 197448 )

        Is there another kind? I mean, outside the classroom?

        Of course. It is too bad, the US is slowly sliding down on the ease of doing business measures [doingbusiness.org]. It was not always that way, and it can get better again. One hopes...

        • It was not always that way

          Is there a specific time when that was so? I will grant that lack of bureaucracy was a hallmark in the "Land of Opportunity"®, but that was during the westward expansion when "business" was more "regulated" by gangsters and grifters, where the rules are much simpler.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        Which is probably the strongest argument for small government. Most of us collectively realize that given the opportunity the game will be rigged, when faces with the choice as individuals we might even decide to rig it ourselves, so as to bring home the bacon. We need to understand that if we really care about justice and equality for all we need to limit government. We need to rigidly apply the Constitution at the federal level. We need to update our state Constitutions to prevent over reach of state

        • We need to understand that if we really care about justice and equality...

          Ah, there lies the rub, wouldn't you agree? The entire burden is on our own shoulders.

    • Charter could be wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday August 01, 2016 @12:53PM (#52622603)

      Cable TV is considered a luxury item. Hence the rules for charter are based on Cable TV Service. Internet on the other hand isn't a luxury service it is needed to operate in modern daily life. Now the Cable TV Industry used their infrastructure to expand to Internet. However it is still bundled, and priced accordingly. Google Fiber is meant to be much cheaper and get more. These government restrictions can be relaxed because 1. it is for a greater good, 2. they are trying to offer services at a lower price point.

      I would agree to charters terms IF they can provide the citizens similar services for similar costs without such extra controls.

      The Cable TV Monopoly has been a bastardization on the US Market for too long. Hense why Cable TV companies are some of the worst to deal with.

    • Most of that is because they are not a cable company. They are providing internet not TV. They money is that like any other new business these days with tax incentives? Free internet to government buildings within their footprint seems like a pretty trivial tack on. A studio thats for TV not internet and frankly they give every 501c company lots of free services that are internet related anyways, besides is it 1985 again you can stream to youtube with a phone most of the barriers to public access level

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by guises ( 2423402 )
      That's a terrible article. Yes regulations and pole attachment fees create barriers to stringing new cables, but we don't want new cables. Unregulated utility poles look like this [duckduckgo.com]. The point of open access is to promote competition over existing cables.

      You can still blame government if you want, but blame them for de-regulating access back in 1996, Of course, they only did so at the behest of industry lobbyists.

  • Internet Provider vs Cable Provider? (Score:3)

    by bjwest ( 14070 ) on Monday August 01, 2016 @12:34PM (#52622435)
    Doesn't Google provide only internet? Why would they have to provide government channels and public access studios?

  • we need of list of cities by "unfair edges" given (Score:4, Interesting)

    by smoothnorman ( 1670542 ) on Monday August 01, 2016 @12:34PM (#52622439)
    Just in terms of fiber i'll add: Seattle :: Comcast. They were given assurances that they wouldn't have to compete against any municipal fiber in return for maintaining a paltry "City Channel" (typically channel 21).

  • Paying "above and beyond" (Score:3)

    by synapse7 ( 1075571 ) on Monday August 01, 2016 @12:35PM (#52622443)

    What are we talking here?
     
      It's hard to feel remorse for Charter when I'm paying nearly $200 a month for cable tv and 60mb service, and we don't get all the channels. Probably further unrelated, but charter is still pushing 5mb business accounts around here, what is that?

  • Government gives a monopoly to an entity (be it themselves or to a commercial entity). Government in return negotiates (strongarms) for 'free' services it would otherwise have to pay for. Monopoly is broken - and people are surprised that the government might now have to pay for those 'free' services?

    Who did they think was actually paying for those 'free' services beforehand? Are they really that blind?

    • Re:Government mandated monopolies and collusion (Score:4, Informative)

      by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Monday August 01, 2016 @12:49PM (#52622555) Journal

      Government should NOT be involved in regulation of CATV markets. Instead, it should be in the market of providing the Transport Layer, so that ANY company can use the transport layer (Fiber) to provide services, and let the competition happen there, instead of at the last mile.

      Removing the LAST MILE problem from the equation will basically open up competition and we'll see actual innovation and price changes. And some municipalities are starting to go down this road. Once it is shown to work (sufficiently better than current franchise agreements), you'll see the end of the monopolistic nature of CATV and Internet Service

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Since when have telecoms been expected to compete fairly? Lopsided local deals are common in the industry, often in the name of "getting a better deal for consumers", but not ending up that way in the longer run.

    This doesn't condone the Google deal, but rather should be shining a light on a much wider problem.

    • Since when have Major Industries been expected to compete fairly?

      FTFY

      Since we abdicated power to the elites, because "women, children and kittens" they have accumulated power, under the guise of protecting us from ... "evil doers". So, they think they can "service" us with "protections" for their cronies. It is the worst part of Crony Capitalism.

      The fix is to remove the Cronyism from the system, and stop letting people control competition via "regulation".

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        Without regulation they'd make large proprietary systems with no swappable parts so that only their stuff works with their stuff. Any competitor would have to reinvent the entire wheel for miles. Not efficient, not logical, not competitive.

  • Pot meet kettle (Score:5, Informative)

    by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Monday August 01, 2016 @12:36PM (#52622453)

    Louisville's largest cable and internet provider says the city is giving Google Fiber an unfair advantage

    Cable companies whining about unfair advantages. Cry me a river. This from the same folks that built their business by convincing municipalities to sign exclusive agreements for cable service within an area.

    • For which the cable cos made concessions, now the city wants to scrap the monopoly and keep concessions.
      • Trolling for the cable companies. Take it elsewhere Potsy.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
          Do you always call others a troll if they offer a perspective different from yours?

          I haven't read enough about this to go one way or the other but it is quite possible Charter has a legitimate beef. Just because we think the terms are ridiculous to begin with doesn't mean it's right for the municipality to pick and choose which parts of the mutual agreement to adhere to.

      • Concessions? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sjbe ( 173966 )

        For which the cable cos made concessions, now the city wants to scrap the monopoly and keep concessions.

        "Cable company made concessions"? Ha! Pray tell what did the cable company give up to get their monopoly? Who do you think benefited the most?

        Truthfully I couldn't care less if it is unfair to the cable company or not. The sooner we get real competition the better and if a huge cable provide gets screwed in the process, that's just the cherry on top. If you check their record on customer service you aren't going to come away impressed. I only care about the end customers and ensuring they get the best

      • They got 40+ years out of the deal. Time to renegotiate.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by jezwel ( 2451108 )
        Sounds like the city is acting in the best interests of its citizens - introduce competition to drive down pricing, yet retain concessions from the original monopoly. It looks like the city is going to review their agreements, so nothing more to see here until a decision is made - then we have something to talk about.

  • They did, after all, buy their monopoly fair and square and should have a contract with the city for it.

    Should be interesting.

    In communism, the state owns the corporations.
    In capitalism, it's the other way around.
    Party politics stay the same.

    • Unless Google is providing cable TV service, the cable company still has the monopoly it asked for. If that particular monopoly has become less lucrative over time, that's not the fault of either Google or the city.

  • Yes, they have such a right.
    Your charter requires you to serve "In the public interest"
    Your monopoly activities do not so serve
    The other party to the contract has every right to obtain leverage to make you adhere to your charter.

  • It might be said that Google has yet to prove they are douche bags who will screw over their customers, the city and anyone else whom they can for a .05. I am not saying Google won't end up that way but so far their fiber rollout has resulted in a much more competitive environment benefiting everyone involved except the incumbent cable/content providers that have been routinely screwing everyone involved.

  • Charging long-time customers more than they charge new customers has been a thing for cable companies for awhile now - so I guess they should understand too when it happens to them?

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close