Slashdot Mirror
Charter: City Giving Google Fiber Unfair Edge (courier-journal.com)
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.
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.
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?
For which the cable cos made concessions, now the city wants to scrap the monopoly and keep concessions.
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.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
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 deal.