

Google Strikes an Upbeat Note with FCC on Title II - zastrowm
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/12/31/google-strikes-an-upbeat-note-with-fcc-on-title-ii/

======
greggyb
This 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...](http://www.kandutsch.com/articles/access-to-utility-poles-for-ftth-
providers)

~~~
ianlevesque
> 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.

~~~
greggyb
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.

~~~
vproman
See the 1996 Telecom Act. It explicitly laid out the classifications the FCC
can use: telecom, broadcast, cable and information service.
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_199...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996)

Per the courts, the FCC does not have the authority to create a new
classification, only Congress can do that. The FCC must apply one of the
classifications to ISPs and regulate them according to that classification per
the 1996 act. The FCC currently classifies ISPs as information services, and
information services _can_ discriminate because they offer a service that
requires a greater level of control in order to function.

Also see the court case where the FCC attempted to apply special regulations
to the ISPs, and the courts shot the FCC's special regulations down:
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._Federal_Communications_Commission_%282014%29)

~~~
greggyb
Thanks much. This is helpful for me.

------
Animats
Current 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.

~~~
divegeek
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.

------
abulafia
It 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.

------
kbenson
I 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.

------
rasz_pl
Meanwhile in civilized world (Europe): Poland/Warsaw, Regulatory body
prevented UPC Cablecom, European cable giant, from completely taking over
local competitor. UPC was forced to sell hardware infrastructure gained in the
merge, and obligated to lease it for at least 12 months after the sale.

"In May 2013 Netia acquired from UPC Polska a part of former Aster cable
operator’s network, which was classified for resale according to the decision
of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK)
as of September 5, 2011 approving the acquisition of Aster cable operator by
UPC Polska. Netia purchased from UPC Polska and UPC Poland Holding BV 100% of
shares in Centrina Sp. z o.o. and Dianthus Sp. z o.o., which own cable
networks in Warsaw and Krakow reaching a total of 446,000 homes passed. The
transaction has been treated as a purchase of network assets and related
liabilities with a net valuation of PLN 5.8m. Simultaneously, UPC Polska
concluded with Centrina and Dianthus a 12-month network rental agreement in
order to ensure service continuity to its customers during a transition
period. Total consideration payable to Netia Group for this network rental
amounts to PLN 4.5m. Moreover, Netia will receive discounts on certain ongoing
commercial agreements between the Netia Group and UPC Polska. These discounts
are estimated to amount to PLN 16.4m and will be recognized as they are
received."

Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) - sounds pretty alien to
all USians, doesnt it? :)

Result: 300Mbit/s internet is $17/month. 300Mbit internet + A la carte TV
(YES, about $1.5 per 1-17 channel bundles you can freely pick from, 170
channels in total) starts at $20/month.

[http://giga-kablowka.pl/](http://giga-kablowka.pl/)

