AT&T sues Nashville to roadblock Google Fiber expansion
56 replies, posted
Google at least isn't known for being the absolute assholes of the legal system and shutting down anything that could remotely be considered competition. I'd much rather have papa google than ma bell running my local ISP monopoly because it gives more of a chance for munifiber companies to spring up which IMO are the ideal solution.
[QUOTE=Levelog;51100077]Google at least isn't known for being the absolute assholes of the legal system and shutting down anything that could remotely be considered competition. I'd much rather have papa google than ma bell running my local ISP monopoly because it gives more of a chance for munifiber companies to spring up which IMO are the ideal solution.[/QUOTE]
It's great that Google is stirring up competition and forcing ISPs to step it up, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's some creepy shit in Fiber's TOS. Google is already known for collecting customer data from their services, imagine all of your network traffic going through them
According to Google's privacy policy, they only use the information they gather for the betterment of their stuff and anything else will be explicitly asking you for permission first. Why would they breach that agreement?
[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;51094885]They're in every right to defend their monopoly. People just don't realize that Google isn't doing this for progress, they're doing it to monopolize themselves as well.[/QUOTE]
It's one thing to defend their monopoly. It's another matter entirely when they use the legal system to bully away all competition.
[QUOTE=Jager_57;51100974]It's one thing to defend their monopoly. It's another matter entirely when they use the legal system to bully away all competition.[/QUOTE]
Well they're allowed to contest something that affects their business.
You also need to consider that Google is massively pushing for HTTPS, which makes an ISP's datamining abilities irrelevant.
An ISP can still datamine by determining what server you connect to and in some cases successfuly MITM the SSL
How is this even an argument? Any competition is good competition, even if you think Google is shady. It doesn't matter if big scary Google is trying to take over the ISP market, because their service is 100x better than any other big ISP in America right now. If it wasn't for them, the only way to get gigabit internet in the cities Google are setting up in would be spending $300/month or more from ATT and Comcast and the like.
For the price of Google Fiber, I'm getting 25 down 5 up from Comcast. I would kill to have them come to my area.
[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;51101010]Well they're allowed to contest something that affects their business.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but they're dicks for trying. Worse, if it succeeds then they're using the government as a tool against us. People who are paying taxes for the privilege of being told who's allowed to supply them and who isn't. Get back to your land serf.
[QUOTE=C0linSSX;51100718]It's great that Google is stirring up competition and forcing ISPs to step it up, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's some creepy shit in Fiber's TOS. Google is already known for collecting customer data from their services, imagine all of your network traffic going through them[/QUOTE]
I mean ATT's TOS for $70 Gigabit includes injecting ads into your session and datamining you so it can't be worse.
[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;51101010]Well they're allowed to contest something that affects their business.[/QUOTE]
It's called the "free market", not the "market that only existing companies on the market can be in"
[QUOTE=bdd458;51101878]It's called the "free market", not the "market that only existing companies on the market can be in"[/QUOTE]
nah, it's the free market when they're abusing us, and it's the 'market that only existing companies on the market can be in' when someone tries to do something about it
[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;51094885]They're in every right to defend their monopoly.[/QUOTE]
No, they aren't. This is America, where capitalism is a core piece of our government and anti-monopoly laws were created specifically to [I]prevent[/I] people having monopolies.
Shameful, but not surprising. I've heard stories in the past of AT&T and other major telecoms in the US using legal pressure at the state and local levels to try and block/hinder roll-out of Google Fiber in other states, as well as municipal fiber networks in places like Chattanooga.
One more reason I'm glad Wheeler's FCC is being somewhat belligerent towards the big US ISPs now, since they've gotten their way through sleazy means like this for far too long.
Fuck you and your monument to sauron.
[QUOTE=gk99;51102114]No, they aren't. This is America, where capitalism is a core piece of our government and anti-monopoly laws were created specifically to [I]prevent[/I] people having monopolies.[/QUOTE]
Well most ISPs have this awesome little off the books agreements not to expand on others territories. So they're left with choosing with a couple overpriced pieces of shit lines.
But some people are just so worried about personalized ads.
[editline] Hillary invented chemtrails [/editline]
The thing Frezian you cry and moan about google and their adsense. But this technology was always going to be unavoidable. Someone was always going to make a technology like adsense. Regardless of their stance on capitalism your data has HUGE importance on metrics in this world. Something like adsense was unavoidable in a rapidly expanding market Would've been in 2008 or 2010 or now.
What harm is a personalized ad ? Did you used to open up spam mail and laugh and say "oh i was never going to buy this because of i have no need for it!"
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;51102338]Well most ISPs have this awesome little off the books agreements not to expand on others territories. So they're left with choosing with a couple overpriced pieces of shit lines.
[/QUOTE]
Not only that, they segment off the price markets. CenturyLink has all the old rotting copper, so they sell DSL for $20-45/month, and Comcast has newer FTTN + Coax infrastructure, and charge $60/mo and up.
[editline]Better get the spray bottles of vinegar then...[/editline]
At least where I live is somewhat lucky, we just [I]finally[/I] got Google fiber, CenturyLink is installing their fiber, and Comcast has plans to start installing fiber in homes mid next year.
[QUOTE=Jager_57;51101389]Sure, but they're dicks for trying. Worse, if it succeeds then they're using the government as a tool against us. People who are paying taxes for the privilege of being told who's allowed to supply them and who isn't. Get back to your land serf.[/QUOTE]
They're in every right to defend themselves against someone intruding on their market share. Especially if it's uncertain whether or not they are capable to handle the same tasks as they who've had much more experience in the field.
The idea that companies shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves is ridiculous to me. Especially, considering how much this law changes for the current ISPs in the area. Making it easier for competitors to build out is not a good thing, so using the judical system is the only solution to contest it. Mind you, its' terrible that a company has to defend their monopoly this way.
But, they still have a case here or do they? I find this entire pretty hilarious, the problems perceived in the article were so shallow and so hilarious. But, then again what can you do to stop someone that isn't part of the buddy system and yet has enough assets to get their hand into their pretty little garden of a market. Astonishingly the only way to stop them is to do litigation which is usually the only way provided to you once you're having to deal with an entity that is on the same playing field as you are.
Anyways, yes they do have a case in the way that the law was obviously passed due to Googles' interests in Nashville (But of course, when the litigation stinks of "We don't want to change and have our pretty little garden", it becomes absolutely laughable) though I must say I wonder how good the legal representatives of Alphabet is. Especially if Nashville takes up the opportunity to use them.
Also, just as a side note. Tax payers shouldn't have a say in what service are provided for themselves. The free market is what provides you with whatever service is in your area. Too bad the free market failed dramatically.
[editline]25th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=gk99;51102114]No, they aren't. This is America, where capitalism is a core piece of our government and anti-monopoly laws were created specifically to [I]prevent[/I] people having monopolies.[/QUOTE]
Yet, the ISP situation in America is literally a monopoly buddy system since Google entered the market.
[editline]25th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=bdd458;51101878]It's called the "free market", not the "market that only existing companies on the market can be in"[/QUOTE]
Sadly, the ISPs exploited that and made sure that no competition could exist. The only reason these news articles pop up is because Google decided they had enough with the terrible situation and decided to fix the issue by forcing them to better themselves. Many have tried in the past to get a share of the mega ISP providers pie but they've all been turned to ash as soon as they've entered the market. Google can't be fucked with which is why they all start crying and using litigation as their only method of stopping progress.
[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;51103724]They're in every right to defend themselves against someone intruding on their market share. Especially if it's uncertain whether or not they are capable to handle the same tasks as they who've had much more experience in the field.[/QUOTE]
They can defend themselves via the free market, full stop.
If Google buys the pole rights, puts in the fiber, and installs it, the only reason for at&t to sue is they think ll it'll be the path of least resistance, or least cost to remove their competitor.
This has happened before, it happened in my state. Comcast and CenturyLink sued our municipal fiber, CenturyLink also leveraged that a major share-holder was president of the Utah taxpayer association, and sent out FUD about the fiber.
This was about 4 years ago. Our municipal fiber rightfully won the court cases, and is kicking the ass of Comcast and CenturyLink wherever it's deployed.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51103974]They can defend themselves via the free market, full stop.
If Google buys the pole rights, puts in the fiber, and installs it, the only reason for at&t to sue is they think ll it'll be the path of least resistance, or least cost to remove their competitor.
This has happened before, it happened in my state. Comcast and CenturyLink sued our municipal fiber, CenturyLink also leveraged that a major share-holder was president of the Utah taxpayer association, and sent out FUD about the fiber.
This was about 4 years ago. Our municipal fiber rightfully won the court cases, and is kicking the ass of Comcast and CenturyLink wherever it's deployed.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, the litigation here is to stop Google indirectly. But Google seems to not want to lay down like a good pup (I mean offering legal help to Nashville from their own core Alphabet lawyer team, says it all). It certainly is interesting, I've went back and forth on this topic. But, I think it's ridiculous in a sense that they can create a case out of belief that Google would do a terrible job and make customers lose their internet access by doing the job wrong.
I mean, sure Google has very little experience compared to the other ISPs. But, I also think litigation in cases like this is where I start questioning the free market principal that americans throughout this thread have said exists. There's nothing free market about stomping competition with litigation and that's where I get iffy and sad about this whole state of affairs. A full free market wouldn't have petty cat fights in court, it'd be a perfect paradise where everyone had to adapt or fall. Too bad, we don't live in such a paradise.
Progress gets killed in courtrooms or behind the door meetings with each competitor while smaller competitors... Well, they get destroyed in court or by being price gouged out of the market.
Then again the american system allows for litigation, so they are in every right to defend themselves even if it's the defense of a monopoly that doesn't progress. Of course, they might not win it (thankfully). But, sometimes that happens and progress gets halted until another case gets brought forth. Such is how this works.
Google is in a sense the catalyst for progress and as always Google does a lot of good things for the bettering of mankind and I am certainly happy in the role of giving better internet for the american people. Though I will always question the motives for Google in situations like this. Then again maybe it's just pure altruism or their want to enter a new market.
Then again, they can do whatever they want. They're Google.
[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;51103724]Also, just as a side note. Tax payers shouldn't have a say in what service are provided for themselves. The free market is what provides you with whatever service is in your area. Too bad the free market failed dramatically.[/QUOTE]
You're defending government enforced monopolization, and then say that it's too bad that the free market failed? These two things are exclusive. A free market allows competition.
Also, it's not that taxpayers should choose who can and can't provide a service, it's that the government should not be acting [i]directly[/i] against them.
[QUOTE=Jager_57;51104757]You're defending government enforced monopolization, and then say that it's too bad that the free market failed? These two things are exclusive. A free market allows competition.
Also, it's not that taxpayers should choose who can and can't provide a service, it's that the government should not be acting [i]directly[/i] against them.[/QUOTE]
Of course I defend government enforced monopolization. I look at the situation in the American ISP situation and I see a failed free market. The companies don't want to compete against the future of internet technology. Why should they when they can save billions of dollars on running low cost and make sure that everyone of the other big ISPs are on equal footings and not expanding into eachothers' territory.
But the federal government has nothing to do with these litigations, they're done by companies against cities or states. They're not affecting you in the slightest. Except if you are literally meaning "government" as the judical system is part of it, but then again these cases never get a foothold in the actual federal government. They're only on a local level, up to a state.
Also, it seems in this case the city of Nashville wanted it to be easier for new ISPs like Google to create an infrastructure much faster than was legally allowed beforehand. The laws were probably in place by the competitors of Google. So they litigate against it. The government isn't doing the damage, it's the ISPs who believe they've got a court case to settle, so they can continue having a monopoly. Not the government.
The government were the ones that made it possible to sue over the smallest thing, so in that sense. Yes, blame the government for wasting the judical systems' time.
[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;51104848]
But the federal government has nothing to do with these litigations, they're done by companies against cities or states. They're not affecting you in the slightest. Except if you are literally meaning "government" as the judical system is part of it, but then again these cases never get a foothold in the actual federal government. They're only on a local level, up to a state.
[/QUOTE]
Yes they affect us in the long run. If the government had no hands in litigation, there would be absolutely nothing to litigate. It just takes these people 1 case to start a spree in slowing down or stopping fiber rollouts to residental services.
AT&T just so happens to be on this really weird streak being a bunch of raging assholes. They where forced by the FCC to provide a free low bandwidth service when they aquired DTV. They're not going too because the FCC bumped the guidelines for broadband to be way higher than theyre willing to provide residential services.
So look there, even on a federal level theyre being cunts. If it walks like a cunt, litigates like a cunt lets dismiss this as "lol this doesnt affect you anyways"
[quote]Of course I defend government enforced monopolization. I look at the situation in the American ISP situation and I see a failed free market.[/quote]
:what:
How could you defend an enforced monopoly and see a failed free market? Also they're agreements with the companies themselves, not the government, that stifles encroachment in territories when it comes to residental lines.
[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;51104848]Of course I defend government enforced monopolization. I look at the situation in the American ISP situation and I see a failed free market. The companies don't want to compete against the future of internet technology. Why should they when they can save billions of dollars on running low cost and make sure that everyone of the other big ISPs are on equal footings and not expanding into eachothers' territory.
But the federal government has nothing to do with these litigations, they're done by companies against cities or states. They're not affecting you in the slightest. Except if you are literally meaning "government" as the judical system is part of it, but then again these cases never get a foothold in the actual federal government. They're only on a local level, up to a state.
Also, it seems in this case the city of Nashville wanted it to be easier for new ISPs like Google to create an infrastructure much faster than was legally allowed beforehand. The laws were probably in place by the competitors of Google. So they litigate against it. The government isn't doing the damage, it's the ISPs who believe they've got a court case to settle, so they can continue having a monopoly. Not the government.
The government were the ones that made it possible to sue over the smallest thing, so in that sense. Yes, blame the government for wasting the judical systems' time.[/QUOTE]
State government, federal government, judicial government, city government, all of these things are government.
At this point I can only question your motives.
They aren't morally right because they're strong-arming everybody else out of existence.
They aren't legally right because monopolization is illegal in the United States. They get around it by making an oligopoly instead. Those are not legal either, but it's much harder to get the necessary evidence against.
They aren't ideologically right because they are replacing the free market with exclusive domestic protectionism.
They aren't acting in anybody's best interests beside their own, because they can and do charge as much as they can profit from while providing as little service as possible.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;51105360]Yes they affect us in the long run. If the government had no hands in litigation, there would be absolutely nothing to litigate. It just takes these people 1 case to start a spree in slowing down or stopping fiber rollouts to residental services.
AT&T just so happens to be on this really weird streak being a bunch of raging assholes. They where forced by the FCC to provide a free low bandwidth service when they aquired DTV. They're not going too because the FCC bumped the guidelines for broadband to be way higher than theyre willing to provide residential services.
So look there, even on a federal level theyre being cunts. If it walks like a cunt, litigates like a cunt lets dismiss this as "lol this doesnt affect you anyways"
:what:
How could you defend an enforced monopoly and see a failed free market? Also they're agreements with the companies themselves, not the government, that stifles encroachment in territories when it comes to residental lines.[/QUOTE]
I agree, that it stops progress as I've already addressed. Though, the fault lays on the governmental side of allowing companeis free reign to stop whatever progress with active litigation.
I was talking about forced governent monopolization, which has been part of my country. Isn't a free market failed when the competition decides to coalition together to stop competition completely?
[editline]26th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jager_57;51105489]State government, federal government, judicial government, city government, all of these things are government.
At this point I can only question your motives.
They aren't morally right because they're strong-arming everybody else out of existence.
They aren't legally right because monopolization is illegal in the United States. They get around it by making an oligopoly instead. Those are not legal either, but it's much harder to get the necessary evidence against.
They aren't ideologically right because they are replacing the free market with exclusive domestic protectionism.
They aren't acting in anybody's best interests beside their own, because they can and do charge as much as they can profit from while providing as little service as possible.[/QUOTE]
I came into this thread, from the viewpoint of a person that knew that in America you can actively litigate against any progress or in many ways also litigate to gain progress. Therefore since it's clear that ISPs in America are in a fantastic relationship and is basically pushing a monopoly I was quite frank about it. I also believe that they are allowed to litigate based on the fact that they have that legal power to stop anyone from intruding on their market.
Surprisingly, they've been using that legal power all over the United States lately. They are in every right to defend their monopoly as they have been given that power by the federal government. Honestly it's disgusting truly. But, that's how it is.
I also am sceptic when it comes to what Googles final goals are in this altruism centered goal of bringing Americans greater internet services for lower prices. I am always quite sceptic over what might happen. Maybe Google just wants to become part of the Monopoly later down the line. Even then, they would've still done a good work of creating at least a better internet for americans. Even if it all gets pushed back again later down the line.
Then again most likely Google does what Google wants, so they probably are there just to better mankind as per usual.
Last, but not least. I just find the situation terrible, I am a sceptic of Google and their later down the line plans. But, then again if they continue with the way they've been advertising and represented themselves. I'd rather support them than any of the telecom conglomerates in America. Honestly though the whole don't trust Google thing I went on about is so far back out of left field and to be honest, what Google does. Most everyone else does, just not as effective.
(Now if you asked me if I'd buy Google Fiber. Yes, I would buy Google Fiber compared to the horrible telecom conglomerates who shark you for every penny).
[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;51108192]Isn't a free market failed when the competition decides to coalition together to stop competition completely?[/QUOTE]
No. The government must also fail to act against it. This was previously the case.
Essentially, Love or hate google, they're restoring the free market. If the government strikes them down, then you can't even call it a failed free market. It has become a command economy.
[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;51108192] I also believe that they are allowed to litigate based on the fact that they have that legal power to stop anyone from intruding on their market.[/QUOTE]
See, it's not [i]their[/i] market, because if they owned the entire market, then it would be illegal under anti-trust laws. If they win this case, THEN it becomes their market, as the government has basically acknowledged and supported their sovereignty over it.
They are allowed to make a case. That is everybody's right. They are not allowed to win, and I don't see any grey area that would allow them to. If they win, then it is going against established law.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.