

Google Fiber franchise wins approval from Portland City Council - sunilkumarc
http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2014/06/google_fiber_franchise_wins_ap.html

======
rayiner
I think this is great, but it's really critical to understand the regulatory
concessions Google won in this process (FTA):

> The agreement exempts Google from a 3 percent "PEG fee" that the city
> charges Comcast.

> Unlike Comcast, Google Fiber is not required to serve all parts of the city.
> Google says it will operate in "fiberhoods" where subscribers reach a
> critical mass.

So far Google has gotten these sorts of concessions in most if not all of the
Google Fiber Cities, over public opposition:
[http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2023420101_b...](http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2023420101_briercolumn21xml.html).
Provisions like these are key barriers to establishing competition in other
markets, especially for companies that don't have the negotiating clout of
Google.

The media has tended to focus on the Google versus cable/telco fight, but at
least as important if not more so is the precedent that Google's hardball
tactics are setting for municipalities: if you want fiber, you have to give up
these terms in franchise agreements. Google's efforts here will be a huge boon
to companies like RCN that are attempting to build fiber in cities with
established cable or telecom competitors.

There's also a third interesting point:

> Portland and Google will participate in a "joint defense" of the franchise
> if it faces a legal challenge over allegations it gave Google Fiber
> preferential treatment, exceeded the city's authority, or violates the law
> in some way.

~~~
wcfields
> The agreement exempts Google from a 3 percent "PEG fee" that the city
> charges Comcast.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

This is very very very bad and sets a horrible precedent. Portland has one of
the best cable-access facilities and set of stations in the country. They
serve a vital public interest, allow absolute free expression, and
"professionalize" niche programs that otherwise would just be someone talking
into a webcam.

~~~
tptacek
Am I misunderstanding you or are you suggesting that anyone who provides
Internet service in Portland should be subsidizing public access television?

~~~
wmf
Note that Google Fiber is essentially a cable company since they provide TV.
Whether a company uses coax, twisted pair, or fiber isn't relevant to video
franchise agreements.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multichannel_video_programming_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multichannel_video_programming_distributor)

------
rdl
What would be really awesome would be Google Fiber covering Portland and
somehow covering Vancouver, WA too.

~~~
canadaj
And then the rest of WA!

------
mwsherman
Not that this isn’t good news – it is – but it’s taken 4 years to get to this
point:
[http://blog.oregonlive.com/siliconforest/2010/03/portland_ci...](http://blog.oregonlive.com/siliconforest/2010/03/portland_city_council_backs_go.html)

Still no fiber in the ground. This sort of negotiation is such a huge barrier
to entry that only very big (or incumbent) companies have a fighting chance.

Obviously, Google entering the market is a big deal and good news – two
competitors is better than one. But only a company of the size and regulatory
savvy of Google would even try.

------
waterfowl
Come on progressive portland, build a municipal fiber network like my redneck
hometown in Tennessee.

------
f3llowtraveler
I thought America had free markets?

So then why do people need permission from government councils in order to
compete in Internet access?

------
pdxandi
I've been impressed with our city council so far. Now let's hope they
legitimize short-term rentals so we can continue offering Airbnb in Portland.

