Google Fiber Phoenix (Scottsdale, Tempe: 2015, power lines, bankrupt)

[stevek64]

No commitment yet states the article, just like Tempe:

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/b...agreement.html

In regards to the Tempe agreement, it's lawsuit time:

City makes rule favoring Google Fiber, gets sued by cable company | Ars Technica

[Voebe]

I'm a-thinkin' if Cox had better customer service, so that their customers might be loyal, they wouldn't have to worry so much about competition.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by stevek64

No commitment yet states the article, just like Tempe:

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/b...agreement.html

In regards to the Tempe agreement, it's lawsuit time:

City makes rule favoring Google Fiber, gets sued by cable company | Ars Technica

There is not supposed to be a commitment yet. This is the normal process of getting Google Fiber approved. First, Google has to choose the city; they chose Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe. The second step involves coming to an agreement that if Google Fiber is chosen in your city, you agree to allow access to certain power lines, utilities, land etc; Google reached agreements with Tempe and Phoenix, Scottsdale is still pending. The third step involves going to the cities and performing their research. If they feel the city is capable of providing Fiber services then Google agrees and begins to build their network. That portion has not been done for either Phoenix or Tempe and this step is still pending which was to be expected; it takes time to perform that.

The only issue was with Tempe. Cox sued Tempe saying they are giving preferential treatment to Google in how they are classifying Google's services. Basically the difference between Phoenix and Tempe, is Phoenix is going to allow Cox and other providers renegotiate their contracts with the city to be more competitive hence the reason Cox is not suing Phoenix. My guess is Tempe will settle with Cox and allow them the same privilege that Phoenix is offering.

My feeling is it will get done in all three cities. Phoenix will probably chosen first now since they don't have the lawsuit to deal with.

[stevek64]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

There is not supposed to be a commitment yet. This is the normal process of getting Google Fiber approved. First, Google has to choose the city to engage in which they did; they chose Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe. The second step involves coming to an agreement that if Google Fiber is chosen in your city, you agree to allow access to certain power lines, utilities, land etc; Google reached agreements with Tempe and Phoenix, Scottsdale is still pending. The third step involves going to the cities and performing their research. If they feel the city is capable of providing Fiber services then Google agrees and begins to build their network.

The only issue was with Tempe. Cox sued Tempe saying they are giving preferential treatment to Google in how they are classifying Google's services. Basically the difference between Phoenix and Tempe, is Phoenix is going to allow Cox and other providers renegotiate their contracts with the city to be more competitive hence the reason Cox is not suing Phoenix. My guess is Tempe will settle with Cox and allow them the same privilege that Phoenix is offering.

Yes, exactly, just a 1st step on a "maybe". Though I'm happy with the speed and reliability of my internet connection from Cox, I certainly always welcome potential competition for obvious reasons.

Good point on the Tempe lawsuit issue vs Phoenix. Let's hope if google fiber ever gets here, such lawsuits won't get dragged out.

[Bondurant]

Cox has a legitimate point in their claims that Google is not being held to the same regulatory standards. My answer would be to ditch the regulatory standards. Let the market decide which service is superior.

[Voebe]

Originally Posted by Bondurant

Cox has a legitimate point in their claims that Google is not being held to the same regulatory standards. My answer would be to ditch the regulatory standards. Let the market decide which service is superior.

You've got to be kidding. I want more regulation for Cox, not less.

[Zippyman]

Originally Posted by Bondurant

Cox has a legitimate point in their claims that Google is not being held to the same regulatory standards. My answer would be to ditch the regulatory standards. Let the market decide which service is superior.

Cox knows that Google will bury them in the "free market", and they're hoping they can use the courts to protect them from real competition.

[Tune_It_Lower]

Originally Posted by Zippyman

Cox knows that Google will bury them in the "free market", and they're hoping they can use the courts to protect them from real competition.

Indeed, the U.S. in in a minority of countries without true Internet provider competition and we have dog**** prices, bandwidth, and service because of it. Crap needs to end.

[Caleb Longstreet]

Cox and other cable and service providers have a legitimate gripe. For decades they have had to pay franchise fees (Which in turn are passed on to you, the consumer) and deal with the never ending BS from every jerk-water town, large and small, that wants a piece of it at literally every inch. Right of Way (ROW) are the only thing more tedious than actually working for a Telco.

The last great monopolies on the ROW are Water Management Districts (ever try to get a fiber cable directionally bored under a fetid creek in Florida??? 6 months if you are lucky JUST to get the permit and the fees for the privilege) and the Rail Roads. It's as though the robber barons of old were still in power. Amazing.

Then, toss in the usual metro crap and you are in for a real hoot. Last time I checked, it can cost you EASILY 200K or more PER MILE to lay down fiber NOT counting your annual maintenance and "fees" that continue to climb over time.

Why should Google get a pass? Either rebate the billions spent thus far in this case, in Tempe by OTHER carriers or, Google should get to "enjoy" the same a-holedness reserved for county, city and other d-Shiite officials who typically don't understand squat and yet, opine about having better service.

As it relates to cable companies, no one can argue that their service needs a boost but, that is what happens when monopolies take over. Same thing you are seeing with AT&T gobbling up Direct TV and gaining marketshare. As soon as they get most of their losses back, service will plummet. It's THE reason you want competition.

Google? Get in line. Just like the rest of the now bankrupt or ailing Telco's and cable giants. It is, what it is.

[Zippyman]

Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet

Cox and other cable and service providers have a legitimate gripe. For decades they have had to pay franchise fees (Which in turn are passed on to you, the consumer) and deal with the never ending BS from every jerk-water town, large and small, that wants a piece of it at literally every inch. Right of Way (ROW) are the only thing more tedious than actually working for a Telco.

The last great monopolies on the ROW are Water Management Districts (ever try to get a fiber cable directionally bored under a fetid creek in Florida??? 6 months if you are lucky JUST to get the permit and the fees for the privilege) and the Rail Roads. It's as though the robber barons of old were still in power. Amazing.

Then, toss in the usual metro crap and you are in for a real hoot. Last time I checked, it can cost you EASILY 200K or more PER MILE to lay down fiber NOT counting your annual maintenance and "fees" that continue to climb over time.

Why should Google get a pass? Either rebate the billions spent thus far in this case, in Tempe by OTHER carriers or, Google should get to "enjoy" the same a-holedness reserved for county, city and other d-Shiite officials who typically don't understand squat and yet, opine about having better service.

As it relates to cable companies, no one can argue that their service needs a boost but, that is what happens when monopolies take over. Same thing you are seeing with AT&T gobbling up Direct TV and gaining marketshare. As soon as they get most of their losses back, service will plummet. It's THE reason you want competition.

Google? Get in line. Just like the rest of the now bankrupt or ailing Telco's and cable giants. It is, what it is.

Cities catch a lot of heat because monopoly cable providers treat their customers exactly like the monopoly phone companies used to. The cities have a tiny sliver of leverage against the cable companies, but no real teeth to force the cable co's to act like decent corporate citizens. You can argue about whether the chicken came first or if the egg did, but you can't argue about how awful the cable companies are. If a city government was as inept & unresponsive to the most basic levels of customer service (like the cable co's are), they'd get bounced out of office pretty darn quick.

So yeah, cable companies get their jewels stomped when they abuse the citizenry & the citizens get a chance to take a swipe back through their local, elected governments.

That doesn't mean Google should share in the 40+ year history of animus. Google didn't earn any animus & local governments are following the wishes of their citizens by cutting them a break. That's a "free market" solution if there ever was one. Give the new guy a chance to provide a new service, without burying him in fees and regulations so bad he can't ever get a foothold.

Or, you can do as the cable co's want & stifle competition to preserve the monopoly.