Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Fiber's Latest FCC Filing: Comcast's Nightmare Come To Life

Posted by timothy on from the just-want-to-seek-some-of-the-same-rents dept.

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from BGR: What's every incumbent ISP's worst nightmare? If we had to guess, it looks something like the filing that Google just made with the Federal Communications Commission. As The Wall Street Journal reports, Google this week told the FCC that reclassifying broadband providers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act would have a big side benefit for Google Fiber because it would give Google Fiber the same access to utility poles and other key infrastructure currently enjoyed by Comcast, AT&T and other big-name ISPs.

13 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. One fiber to rule them... by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why not just run one fiber, ditch all the copper, terminate it at the local POP and then allow various vendors access to that fiber and compete for my business?

    1. Re:One fiber to rule them... by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why not just run one fiber, ditch all the copper, terminate it at the local POP and then allow various vendors access to that fiber and compete for my business?

      Where's the monopoly rent in that setup?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:One fiber to rule them... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gee... sounds almost like Ma Bell after the breakup.

      I'm not being derogatory. Other countries which have similar schemes have better internet for less money than most of the U.S. That's part of what Title II is all about: having a semi-"public" infrastructure, with equal access to it. In other words, actual competition.

      REAL proponents of free market capitalism should have no problem with that idea. Those who do are those who either (A) don't understand that currently we have an oligopoly not a free market, or (B) want to protect their privileged position.

    3. Re:One fiber to rule them... by PPH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      then allow various vendors access

      Because that would eliminate the monopoly control outfits like Comcast have over the last mile. Cable TV would devolve into each service like HBO having their own streaming site available on the 'Net. And Comcast would have no reason to exist.

      It's not like they (Comcast) still don't have a major head start over Google in terms of installed equipment that they could use and go into this same business. But they are too slow to shift their business plan over to the new model. Google knows this and is licking its chops like a tiger watching a crippled deer.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:One fiber to rule them... by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What city do you live in where its acceptable to go 2 months without city provided services? Do you live in some third world country or something? No city thats is going to have fiber is going to behave like that for critical infrastructure.

      Heres the reality: The important things get fixed quickly, regardless of how shitty you think you city performs. Your phone gets repaired quickly now not because the phone company wants to, but because they are legally REQUIRED TO ... BECAUSE of the way they are classified. Same goes for power and water. Guess who requires them too ... DA EBIL GUBMENT.

      Some things aren't important so going extended periods without fixing them is intelligent management of resources. Sorry the pothole that pisses you off didn't get filled quick enough or the street light that went out takes a while to get repaired, but critical services just don't work that way in any city in America. Villages, maybe. Towns ... not likely. Cities, no fucking way.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    5. Re:One fiber to rule them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Net Neutrality means that the traffic comes through unimpeded, not everyone gets the same. If Aunt Marry doesn't want Netflix then she can keep 1.5MBit, if she wants to use Netflix she'll have to buy 4 to 5Mbit minimum service to use it. Netflix doesn't force bandwidth on people, nor would they pay to get it to Marry.

      Someone who pays for 20Mbit, gets close to 20Mbit someone who pays for 40Mbit gets close to 40Mbit.

      It's how each user chooses to use their XXMbit bandwidth that is the focus of net neutrality. Preventing AT&T or Verizon from throttling Netflix or VOIP services to eek out more money.

    6. Re: One fiber to rule them... by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And you bet your ass the city won't lift a finger to fix anything unless they are generating revenue from it

      Cities have something that private companies don't - a degree of accountability to the voters. Around here, if city-maintained infrastructure (water, sewer, etc.) went down and wasn't fixed within a very short time, the mayor, city manager, and city council would start hearing about it, and they're well aware that a substantial portion of the folks here do vote in local elections. If that's not the case where you live, you have larger problems than the city taking too long to fix stuff.

      What GP has not mentioned is that someone has to own and maintain this "public" line and if it's the city, you bet your ass they are going to charge you for it one way or another.

      I'm not sure I see a problem with that, so long as all ISPs are charged pole rent on an equal basis.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    7. Re:One fiber to rule them... by saleenS281 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny you mention street lights and potholes. I've found anytime I've called to report a street light out, it gets replaced within 48 hours max. Potholes are generally a little slower, but within a week. The reason they generally go untouched is because people don't actually report it. They bitch and moan about it on their commute, but by the time they get home they can't be bothered to pick up the phone and let someone know.

    8. Re:One fiber to rule them... by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Poles? Are you nuts? One good ice storm and your internet could be out for days. Infrastructure like that should be buried - out of reach of weather, reckless drivers, etc.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  2. Well if it's bad for comcast... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... it can only be good for us...

  3. Government Permission Should Not Required by Tokolosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why does anyone have to be classified, by the government, as a provider, under title, yada yada?

    Poles, conduits, rights-of-way should belong to the local authority, managed and maintained by the lowest bidding contractor. Anyone or any company then has the right to use, for any commercial or non-commercial purpose, said infrastructure to run their cable or fiber, upon payment of a reasonable fee to cover the upkeep.

    I am not a fan of eminent domain, but if the incumbent says "We installed these poles, they belong to us" then they should be bought out.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  4. Re:What rules prevent them from doing this already by mea_culpa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Back in the 80s and 90s lots of smaller cable companies lobbied local governments and were granted easement access to install their poles, wires, and equipment. Many poles belonged to various utility companies and Ma Bell and access was also negotiated with them. This is a very long process with lots and lots of red tape.

    Bigger companies like Comcast bought these smaller companies primarily for these rights. Anywhere smaller companies overlapped the wires were pulled off of poles to prevent any chance of a competitor gaining easy access to these rights. Any new competitor would now need to start from the very beginning like the smaller companies did in the 80s and 90s in obtaining access.

    In my city we had a choice of Dimension Cable and Cable America in the 80s and 90s. Both of these smaller companies did all of the busy work for Cox which gobbled both of them up and dismantled the redundant perfectly good infrastructure of Cable America.
    Comcast did this on a much larger scale.

  5. ^^^ this. by jpellino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most places have one cable provider. There were supposed to be two per market. Due in no small part to the cost of running cables over existing infrastructure. It's expensive and nobody else thought it was worth the investment so far. But none of them were Google.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."