Google Strikes an Upbeat Note with FCC on Title II
blogs.wsj.com
Google Strikes an Upbeat Note with FCC on Title II
1–10 of 14 posts
Re: Google Strikes an Upbeat Note with FCC on Title II
#2I wonder how much of this statement, if any, is intended to scare the telecoms into not pressing this issue any more. Ina strategy that was probably intended to get Google to commit or get out of the market, they might not like the direction Google takes.
Re: Google Strikes an Upbeat Note with FCC on Title II
#3This article prompted me to read more about pole access rights, and this article[1] seems interesting and informative.
The question it begs, though, is why must a pure ISP be classified as a cable provider or telecommunications provider? It seems clear (and is made explicit in the article I have linked) that a good portion of the problems surrounding this issue come from applying yesterday's regulations to today's technologies.
Why is the following not an option: Add a new classification of utility for ISPs and allow them utility pole access at either one of the existing rates or a new one.
Why is regulation according to Tittle II (a contentious issue) a necessary prerequisite for ISP access to utility polls (a competitive boon wanted by pretty much all internet customers)?
[1]http://www.kandutsch.com/articles/access-to-utility-poles-fo...
Re: Google Strikes an Upbeat Note with FCC on Title II
#4Current coverage is the north side of Kansas City, a suburb of Provo, Utah, and part of Austin, TX. That's all. Google talks big, Google Fiber seems to be more about hype and politics than installation.
Verizon got a lot further with fiber-to-the-home, with coverage for about 12% of households in their territory, before they gave up on FIOS expansion. It wasn't making money.
Sonic.net makes money with their fiber to the home system, but they only have a few cities around Santa Rosa, CA installed, and are trying for three neighborhoods in San Francisco. Maybe it pays because they don't spend so much on PR.
Re: Google Strikes an Upbeat Note with FCC on Title II
#5It will be difficult to make any change in this to open up for alternatives like Google; there's so much entrenched interest/power among cable MSOs and telcos. Hence, the best shot at succeeding is just reclassifying. This would be fantastic, and flip a switch to enable significantly more competition.
Re: Google Strikes an Upbeat Note with FCC on Title II
#6Current coverage is the north side of Kansas City, a suburb of Provo, Utah, and part of Austin, TX. That's all. Google talks big, Google Fiber seems to be more about hype and politics than installation. Verizon got a lot further with fiber-to-the-home, with coverage for about 12% of households in their territory, before they gave up on FIOS expansion. It wasn't making money. Sonic.net makes money with their fiber to…
The purpose of Google Fiber isn't to make Google the world's ISP, it's partly to demonstrate the feasibility of fiber to the home (in a big, public way) and partly to create demand (by being big and public).
Yes, it's more about hype and politics than installation. I thought that was obvious. If the hype and politics doesn't get the big ISPs off the dime, then it may have to become about installation, in which case the experience Google Fiber is obtaining will become important.
Re: Google Strikes an Upbeat Note with FCC on Title II
#7This article prompted me to read more about pole access rights, and this article[1] seems interesting and informative. The question it begs, though, is why must a pure ISP be classified as a cable provider or telecommunications provider? It seems clear (and is made explicit in the article I have linked) that a good portion of the problems surrounding this issue come from applying yesterday's regulations to today's te…
> a good portion of the problems surrounding this issue come from applying yesterday's regulations to today's technologies.
And that is why a functioning congress would be nice.
Re: Google Strikes an Upbeat Note with FCC on Title II
#8This article prompted me to read more about pole access rights, and this article[1] seems interesting and informative. The question it begs, though, is why must a pure ISP be classified as a cable provider or telecommunications provider? It seems clear (and is made explicit in the article I have linked) that a good portion of the problems surrounding this issue come from applying yesterday's regulations to today's te…
> a good portion of the problems surrounding this issue come from applying yesterday's regulations to today's technologies. And that is why a functioning congress would be nice.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that the FCC would need congressional approval to do anything proposed in the parent article or what I've mentioned. They are a regulatory commission that designs and implements regulation.
I may be wrong on that, and if I am a good primer (from anyone or just link) would be nice.
Re: Google Strikes an Upbeat Note with FCC on Title II
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a good portion of the problems surrounding this issue come from applying yesterday's regulations to today's technologies. And that is why a functioning congress would be nice.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that the FCC would need congressional approval to do anything proposed in the parent article or what I've mentioned. They are a regulatory commission that designs and implements regulation. I may be wrong on that, and if I am a good primer (from anyone or just link) would be nice.
The FCC is only authorized to regulate within the bounds of the laws that granted it powers. "Title II" is not something the FCC made up, it's a law passed by congress.
Re: Google Strikes an Upbeat Note with FCC on Title II
#10Current coverage is the north side of Kansas City, a suburb of Provo, Utah, and part of Austin, TX. That's all. Google talks big, Google Fiber seems to be more about hype and politics than installation. Verizon got a lot further with fiber-to-the-home, with coverage for about 12% of households in their territory, before they gave up on FIOS expansion. It wasn't making money. Sonic.net makes money with their fiber to…
I think the point of Google Fiber is to give Google a lever on big telcos. They have a credible capability to come in to just about any area and totally disrupt the ISP / cable TV market there.
Right now, all those ISPs are directly in between Google and their users. In any discussion about net neutrality, this gives Google a powerful and highly visible next-best alternative to a negotiated outcome.
Due to Google Fiber being available as a threat, Google will never have to pay net neutrality fees like Netflix does, because they can simply come in to an area and cause a huge amount of pain for the incumbent ISP that threatened them. Even just publicly discussing moving in to an area causes significant expenses for existing ISPs.