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.
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.
Charter is a Cable TV provider, and were as such when they got their charter. Google is an ISP. The fact Charter has decided to compete in the space Google is also entering doesn't mean previous obligations concerning the provision of TV services are no longer valid.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.