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.
Google Ubers Charter.
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.
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.
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.
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...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Doesn't Google provide only internet? Why would they have to provide government channels and public access studios?
--- Keep the choice with the user..
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).
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?
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.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
Well that and running coax through out the city.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Those "public interest" requirements seem outdated anyways. They sound like a relic of the 80s.
Wayne and Garth have Youtube now.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
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.
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.
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.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Under FCC Rules and Regulations, Cable companies are required to be franchised by the communities that they serve. The franchise is non-exclusive. Multiple franchises are allowed to be issued to multiple cable providers.
There are no regulations requiring data service providers to be franchised, although some arrangement would be needed to access "rights of way" and use of existing utility poles. You'll notice that you are only billed a franchise fee for video services and not for data services by the cable company. The cable companies are free to do almost anything they want regarding data services because they are not regulated as far as the local community is concerned. Exceptions would include "fair use" provisions established by congress and the FCC.
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?
First off with a monopoly that is effectively a risk free investment. I would have ZERO problem pouring millions of dollars into a project that was guaranteed a return if I had any competence at all.
Second, if you think the infrastructure investments wouldn't have been made by someone you are an idiot. There was too much money at stake for it not to get made. They negotiated a series of deals with tiny municipalities that asked for little in return. Basically they took advantage of (and/or bribed) local officials into giving them a long term monopoly on a cash cow almost guaranteed to generate a substantial profit.