The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Google Fiber has filed a letter with the FCC. The letter highlights a significant positive if broadband providers are to be regulated under Title II as a Telecom company. The benefit for them is that as a regulated Telecom, they can no longer be denied access to the poles, conduits, and rights of way that other utility providers (Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc.) have access to. This would result in more than just cost savings (poles are cheaper than trenches), it should also give Google the ability to have a larger footprint faster.
I understand the upside to Google, what is the downside?
Related Stories
Why Google Fiber Is High-Speed Internet's Most Successful Failure (archive)
In the Big Bang Disruption model, where innovations take off suddenly when markets are ready for them, Google Fiber could be seen as a failed early market experiment in gigabit internet access. But what if the company's goal was never to unleash the disrupter itself so much as to encourage incumbent broadband providers to do so, helping Google's expansion in adjacent markets such as video and emerging markets including smart homes? Seen through that lens, Google Fiber succeeded wildly. It stimulated the incumbents to accelerate their own infrastructure investments by several years. New applications and new industries emerged, including virtual reality and the Internet of Things, proving the viability of an "if you build it, they will come" strategy for gigabit services. And in the process, local governments were mobilized to rethink restrictive and inefficient approaches to overseeing network installations.
[...] Google went about announcing locations, and incumbent broadband ISPs, including AT&T, CenturyLink, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable, would quickly counter by promising improved pricing, faster speeds, network upgrades or some combination of the three. A "game of gigs" had erupted. In the end, Google announced plans to build in 34 cities, playing a kind of broadband whack-a-mole game. Incumbents, who initially dismissed the effort as a publicity stunt, accelerated and reprioritized their own deployments city by city as Google announced follow-on expansion.
As the game of gigs played out, city leaders were forced to offer the same administrative advantages to incumbents as they had to Google Fiber. Construction costs fell, and the speed of deployments increased. Only six years after Google's initial announcement, according to the Fiber Broadband Association, 30% of urban residents had access to gigabit Internet service.
Related: Movie Studios Fear a Piracy Surge From Google Fiber
Google Files Letter with FCC Showing Positives of Title II for Broadband Providers
Google Fiber Announces Next 4 Cities to Get 1Gbps
AT&T Charges $29 More for Gigabit Fiber that Doesn't Watch Your Web Browsing
Austinites Outraged as Google Fiber Tears Up Texas Capital
Google Fiber Buys Webpass ISP
After Years Waiting for Google Fiber, KC Residents Get Cancellation E-Mails
FCC Gives Google Fiber and New ISPs Faster Access to Utility Poles
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday January 03 2015, @08:39AM
Well [google.com]?
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:42AM
The downside is that there would be competition. This is a downside if you are Comcast.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:32PM
Will fight it tooth and nail, since Google didn't pay for the labor and hardware. Hence why should they benefit from it?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:49PM
Because Comcast has no moral standing and thus Google may eat them for lunch.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:25PM
Right of way doesn't belong to CC/TWC. In fact a significant percentage of their infrastructure is subsidized, and even more is subsidized indirectly by regulatory capture. CC has made its own bed in a lot of ways by ignoring standards based engineering. They have ALWAYS taken shortcuts in hardware engineering to save a penny at the cost of a pound, much to the dismay of their customer service department.
CC just never stopped being a broadcast company. From their perspective, what you hear, read, watch etc. is "programming", and the selection of it is _their_ sovereign right. They also think that right extends to your Internet service. Don't believe me? Read your service contract.
If Google can do V.V.D. under Title II, there is no reason why CC/TWC can't. Except perhaps that their networks are no longer distinguishable from the domestic political process. Do political parties even exist anymore? Or are they just reality shows, sponsored in part by your friendly neighborhood cable company?
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Saturday January 03 2015, @10:41PM
There was a great article about how companies like CumCrust and its ilk claim Title II status to get free access to all kinds of resources and subsidies, and then disclaim it when it comes to the obligations that come with T2:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/title-shopping-exposed-ve_b_5586478.html [huffingtonpost.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:23PM
the downside might be that you will have too much internet : )
(Score: 1) by goody on Saturday January 03 2015, @08:26PM
The downside is unless the FCC applies forbearance to numerous provisions in Title II, decades-old telco regulations will apply to ISPs, WISPs, and alternative access providers.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:18PM
There are downsides to Title II, but the issue of right-of-way routing of infrastructure components isn't really one of them. This issue has been solved for the most part with Cable companies sharing polls and pipes and access corridors with tellcos and power companies in many places.
(This is mostly for fiber routing, not local loop sharing, because nobody want's gigabit broadband creeping into your house over existing SLOOOOW local loops).
Aside:
Personally, I've kind of changed my views over the years and think that the local distribution grid should be managed by local government like sewer and water and roads and EMS. My general distrust of government still nags at me not only with security and surveillance concerns but also tragedy of he commons issues.
But we are talking about Title 47 › Chapter 5 › Subchapter II › Part I [cornell.edu] here, and its a BIG chunk of law that has never been applied to internet services in the past, and there are probably a LOT of issues lurking in there.
Big Cable doesn't want it because they have had a free reign to do exactly as they please for decades.
Those regulations were designed for telephone services, and would require extensive re-writes or additions to properly govern internet service delivery. And there are significant issues that might negatively affect customers, such as regulations on attachments, and even some of the exceptions to privacy [cornell.edu].
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.