Gov't Approves Parts of Verizon-Cable Spectrum Sale 76
fistfullast33l writes "The Associated Press is reporting that the Justice Department, FCC, and New York State Attorney General approved portions of a deal between Verizon Wireless and cable companies Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Bright House Networks and Cox to sell parts of the wireless spectrum to Verizon for $3.9 billion. However, the Justice Department rejected the agreement between the two groups to allow Verizon to market cable services in its stores in markets where it also offers FIOS service. The spectrum will be used to increase Verizon's 4G LTE network coverage. Verizon will also sell some spectrum to T-Mobile. Consumer groups were very concerned about the cross-marketing by Verizon: 'When it comes to home broadband, Verizon Communication Inc.'s FiOS provides the only significant competition to cable in many areas. Yet FiOS is costly to build out, and Verizon's commitment to the technology has faltered. Consumer groups and unions that opposed the deal between the cable companies and Verizon said it showed that Verizon was further giving up on FiOS and yielding the home broadband market to cable.'"
Re: (Score:1)
That's a very appropriate term in the context of these business deals. It's exactly what the consumer gets.
opening for Google? (Score:3)
If their Kansas-City fiber experiment goes well, perhaps they'll expand into markets Verizon is losing interest in with FiOS.
Re: (Score:2)
the TV part of google fiber is crapola. and a little with FIOS as well.
i have some family who live in the FIOS footprint. they still have cable. the reason is that they watch A LOT of international TV and the cable company has 4 of their language international channels. FIOS has 2. cable costs $80 a month more, but for them its worth it for those channels since that is what they mostly watch.
same with almost every other language channel lineup. lots of people in the USA watch them and are willing to pay for
Re:opening for Google? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Who seriously gets Google Fiber for the TV aspect of it? I dropped my cable subscription years ago, went with my local DSL because my cable company was crap. That trend is growing, plenty of people don't get cable because of the TV aspect but because it is the best way to get broadband for their area.
I know I'm wasting my virtual breath here, as you sound like the sort of hipster wonk who's probably been reminded of this hundreds upon hundreds of times in your life and it still hasn't sunk in yet, but you are not the normal internet user . Maybe you were at one point. Like, in the 80s, before everyone started using it. But nowadays, you aren't . For the vast amount of people who aren't you , they actually want TV service OVER internet service.
Seriously. They. Want. TV. Service. AND, get this
Re: (Score:1)
"For the vast amount of people who aren't you , they actually want TV service OVER internet service."
Wrong, they're forced to get it because bundled packages are cheaper than the standalone internet service.
Old hat trick. So sorry you're too ignorant to see it.
Too soon (Score:2)
And all too soon, US broadband will be just like cable TV: corporatized, regulated for morals, bundled, overpriced, and no real freedom whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
IF you can get Google Fiber. Unless you're in Kansas City, you're not getting it for a while yet to come.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>the TV part of google fiber is crapola. and a little with FIOS as well.
I'm surprised to hear that. I did a quick review of FiOS channel listing and it was hundreds..... more than I would ever watch. In fact I don't even have cable: Just an antenna and still barely watch the 40 channels I get.
Quick list:
- ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW, MyNetTV, Ion
- ~10 independents (mostly showing talkshows & reruns of Xena,SG1, etc)
- PBS, PBSkids, PBSinfo (documentaries), PBSart(live concerts), PBScreate
- MindTV
Re: (Score:2)
that's nice
too bad my inlaws don't watch most of these but the russian channels they have and the ones FIOS doesn't. same with international channels in almost every other language. lots of immigrants in the USA from all around the world who like to watch TV from their birth country.
Re: (Score:2)
Naturally.
I've stayed in a lot of Indian-owned hotels over the years, and all of them had a satellite dish in order to watch their home channels. That's because in most areas of the U.S. cable systems don't carry foreign nations' channels..... for example my town's Comcast has none. In my experience that's the norm rather than the exception.
Re: (Score:2)
FiOS has RT? Shit, I may have to subscribe to TV then, I currently have a data-only package and I think adding TV is only $5 or $10 extra...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
http://antennaweb.org/
Re: (Score:2)
And most of us with FiOS TV would argue that there are way too many international TV stations and that they keep adding more of that crap instead of adding the missing HD channels people are bitching about and wasting space.
There are hundreds (thousands?) of options with FTA type satellite for international channels. It seems like that would be the way to go if you live in the USA and want programming from outside the country.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know if you've noticed this, but the cable TV part of cable is crapola also.
I was paying $45 a month for all SD, no HD channels with fewer channels than I got over the air. To upgrade to equivalent of what I could get for free was $60/mo, and anything with more stuff was pushing ~$100.mo. This is Comcast in my area. But they have the best internet hands down. So I'm doing only internet. Despite them offering me the "basic cable" package for $1/mo on top of my broadband I still declined because
Re: (Score:2)
and if you have kids its missing disney channel as well. i think Fox and CBS were also missing
Re: (Score:1)
and if you have kids its missing disney channel as well. i think Fox and CBS were also missing
If you have kids who cannot do without the Disney channehao reevaluate how they spend theirtimeAlso, aren't cable networks required to carry the over-the-air channels like fox and cbs?
Re: (Score:2)
mostly because disney has better quality content than Nick
if i had a choice to choose one for my kids it would be disney over Nick
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer Nick or Cartoon. I rarely put-on Disney. I admit I used to like watching Hannah Montana with the kids, but all the other shows are mediocre and since HM is gone the channel has nada that I'd watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Hannah Montana? I think you may be ill.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>if you have kids its missing disney channel as well
They can watch it over at their grandparents' house, and at home watch Qubo or Nick or Cartoon instead. As for FOX and CBS isn't it a violation of must-carry rules not to carry the locals? Maybe they didn't demand to be added. (shrug)
I'd give them up (Score:2)
I'd gladly give up any channels that don't want to be part of Google Fiber for the gigabit connectivity. In fact, today I watch almost all television via Hulu, which doesn't include those channels, even CBS, so I simply don't want CBS television shows. Their loss.
I'm really tired of these network playing games with providers. They already make a killing off of advertising, and now they want to make a killing off of subscription fees, while simultaneously pushing hard for exclusive broadcast contracts and
different strategy (Score:1)
I dont think they will be giving up on the "home broadband" market, but will probably focus on trying to attack it differently, wirelessly.... theres an awful lot of spectrum out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not totally true that nobody will build out in areas where existing service exists. Verizon put FIOS into areas where existing cable infrastructure existed.. Of course they charge about 30% more for the same basic services in my area, but they apparently have to pay off the money they borrowed for putting in all that fiber, but they did increase the competition in some ways. The cable company now offers much higher data rates on their internet services and had to build out more capacity to provide t
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon did it when they were trying to roll out FiOS, but now Verizon has stopped moving into new areas. AT&T has also stopped expanding Uverse into new areas. Instead, they're focusing on wireless where they can charge much more for less data.
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon did it when they were trying to roll out FiOS, but now Verizon has stopped moving into new areas. AT&T has also stopped expanding Uverse into new areas. Instead, they're focusing on wireless where they can charge much more for less data.
This is not surprising, given the current economics in this country. When you think of cutting costs when you are on unemployment, I'm sure a lot of folks dump the cable bill in order to buy food. I'm sure this thinking has impacted their subscriber base and they simply don't see the case for expanding their business. Wireless companies are not saddled with the huge infrastructure costs of laying out fiber or coax over large areas. Just pop up a tower and you are in business. Their major cost is spectrum
Re: (Score:2)
The rejected part about selling cable TV service (Score:5, Interesting)
That they even considered doing this shows how little Verizon and Verizon Wireless cooperate. They are two separate companies, alike in name only.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was clear? Maybe missing the word TV?
are they sure? (Score:2)
lying sock puppeteer (Score:1)
when you started using your sock puppet account again earlier this morning you claimed that you couldn't write any more messages as roman_mir for 24 hours [slashdot.org], yet here you are just a few hours later. what gives? why use the sock puppet there and your regular account here? how many other sock puppets do you have?
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
>>> that people in a supposedly 'capitalist' society do not see anything wrong with the very idea that government should at all under any circumstances be meddling with any private deals.
If it was free market I would agree, but Comcast is not a free market. It is a natural monopoly and just like the electric, natural gas, water, and sewer monopolies needs to be regulated. Else these monopolies could raise their prices skyhigh & the customers would have no choice but to pay. So the government steps-in to ensure that does not happen.
Of course an alternative solution is to open Comcast's market to outside Cable TV providers (Cox, Time-warner, Cablevision, etc), but so far local and state governments appear unwilling to let that happen. So the closed monopoly market needs to be regulated by the New York PUC.
I'll go one better (Score:2)
The main thing that keeps a lot of people wedded to cable TV is the also the principal driver of endless spiraling costs: SPORTS. Whether pro leagues or the silliness of March Madness ('student' athletes, my wide ass), or possibly worst of all: SEC football, they are the monopolies that need regulated - along with their co-conspirators ESPN and CBS Sports. The m
Re: (Score:1)
If it was free market I would agree, but Comcast is not a free market. It is a natural monopoly and just like the electric, natural gas, water, and sewer monopolies needs to be regulated.
- there is nothing here that says 'natural monopoly', the government makes it a monopoly, not the company.
Secondly, there is no reason in this world that electric lines, gas, water, sewer should be a monopoly, and they are a monopoly, but again, this has nothing to do with nature, they are government monopoly. Which part of this is unclear? How is it a 'natural' monopoly, when the city grants licenses and permits and tax code is manipulated and various subsidies are provided, what exactly is natural abo
Re: (Score:3)
I may also not understand where you are coming from. So, clarify for me if I am off.
Re: (Score:2)
As the Supreme Court stated a loooong time ago before the FCC even existed (It was called the National Radio Committee... or something). You can't have everybody in a room talking at the same time. Yes everybody has a right to free speech but you still need a moderator to bring order to the chaos by designating who will talk. The FCC is that moderator (for broadcast signals) (not limited-access cable signals).
Re: (Score:1)
NRCS. As I said, this shouldn't be in the hands of the government, there is no reason that government should be the moderator in the room, that's my point.
Re: (Score:2)
There is the problem with those assets being in the hands of the government in the first place
Well who else is it supposed to be owned by? It can't be owned by individuals. It can't be owned by companies. This sort of commons is pretty much the reason the US government was set up in the first place. You can't get any more clear case of a "government function."
Fiber to the premises is too costly (Score:3)
Fiber to the premises is too costly. In relatively built-up suburban areas it can cost between $2000 and $7000 per subscriber. In rural areas it costs between $5000 and $12000 per subscriber. And you wonder why Verizon has stopped building outside of already committed build-outs, and why Verizon has sold entire DSL and FiOS plants to Frontiernet and Fairpoint?
Hybrid fiber/cable as used by cable television companies like Cox and Comcast is far cheaper with comparable actual speed. Naturally with HFC they cannot claim the same theoretical speed but the practical speeds in a modern DOCSIS 3 HFC plant in real life (and not from speedtest.net) is very comparable for far, far less cost to both subscriber and operator.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? I don't see why splitting a single fiber off the main bundle (and to the home) is any more expensive than splitting Coax for Comcast TV?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thats why they are bailing on FiOS. There is quicker money to be made elsewhere.
Exactly. Put a "public" company in charge of "public" infrastructure and they can/should be held to be financially irresponsible to their shareholders for installing high-quality infrastructure when they are holding a monopoly grant from the local government and can get away with installing crap.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"In relatively built-up suburban areas it can cost between $2000 and $7000 per subscriber. In rural areas it costs between $5000 and $12000 per subscriber."
Durrr, as if those subscribers will/will not leave and some other person just reuses existing infrastructure.
Verizon wasn't making money fast enough for their tastes.
Poor planning and execution, that is all this is.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are they supposed to come up with that money? How are they supposed to make it back? Do you think they could just charge every single person $2000-$12000?
Re: (Score:2)
In relatively built-up suburban areas it can cost between $2000 and $7000 per subscriber. In rural areas it costs between $5000 and $12000 per subscriber.
That's not the cost to run to the subscriber, that's the all-inclusive cost to finally fix their ancient broken-ass network so that they can finally make a drop to the subscriber. It's going to have to be done sooner or later anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it is the cost of building the fiber and deploying the drop, but this is provided that all houses along the line become subscribers. The money has to come from somewhere. How does a rural provider make back $12K per subscriber? Answer: they don't.
Tthere is no guarantee that all of those customers on the street you're building on are going to become subscribers. This is also why Verizon got permission to physically cut the copper lines in FiOS neighborhoods. It forces a customer who chooses to
FiOS is not fiber service (Score:2)
FiOS is the name of a service that is delivered over fiber. The fiber itself is not the service. FiOS is essentially the same as cable service without the coax. It does have additional bandwidth by using different wavelengths for the data, and using a wide broadband for the QAM TV.
While at least two companies are now offering at least a gigabit bandwidth to their customers over fiber, FiOS simply has no chance of serving that kind of demand (but neither does cable). Fios could maybe serve 10 customers w