2 ms·

What do you call it when one company acquires the assets and obligations of a portion of another company [0] for a token amount of money? Do you say that the a

What do you call it when one company acquires the assets and obligations of a portion of another company [0] for a token amount of money? Do you say that the acquiring company is "getting cozy" with the company that's divesting itself of those assets? If not, why not? [0] Say, a stagnating project that the divesting company can no longer fund at a level required to ensure the project's success in the marketplace.

dragontamer 11y ago
> What do you call it when one company acquires the assets and obligations of a portion of another company [0] for a token amount of money? Fishy. Unless I have complete and utter trust in the larger company. Consider this: Google is the only company right now that has substantial web traffic, and can very easily violate Net Neutrality by making say... Youtube Google-fiber specific. Even if Google doesn't do this, the fact remains that if they continue to grow in the ISP space, their monetary power and political power will grow exponentially. Or, Google can play the tactics of the previous ISPs by degrading their competitor's traffic (such as slower Bing, Yahoo, or DDG performance on their network). Its innately fishy from my point of view. Google gains too much power for a very low monetary investment.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > [I call that f]ishy. Okay. I guess you don't pay attention much. This sort of thing is not entirely uncommon and frequently entirely aboveboard. :) > Google is the only company right now that has substantial web traffic... What? Netflix pumps twice the traffic of YouTube. [0] > Or, Google can play the tactics of the previous ISPs by degrading their competitor's traffic... Backbone providers (of which ATT is a huge one) can facilitate this sort of thing right now. I wonder why they don't. ;) > Its innately fishy from my point of view. Google gains too much power for a very low monetary investment. You... uh... missed the part where Google takes on the obligation to perform $30 million in near-term improvement, the obligation to pay iProvo's outstanding construction loans for at least the next twelve years, the obligation to cover the $5.25 per month per Provo, UT resident currently paid by each Provo resident. Google is putting a lot more than $1 into this deal. [0] http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-bandwidth-usage-internet-traffic-1201507187/ http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-bandwidth-usage...
  - dragontamer 11y ago
    I don't know why you are twisting the story around, but I'm not inclined to trust you or your data, or your arguments anymore. http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/56206589-78/google-network-provo-fiber.html.csp http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/5620658... > But Provo taxpayers will still have to pay off a $39 million bond that the city originally issued to build the network. With interest, taxpayers still have to pay $3.3 million in bond payments per year for the next 12 years. > Provo Mayor John Curtis also revealed Tuesday that the city will have to front additional money that was not mentioned before. > The city will have to pay about $722,000 for equipment in order to continue using the gigabit service for government operations already using the network, such as the operation of traffic lights and police and fire services. Meanwhile, Google will lease the network to Provo city for free for 15 years. ---- > CenturyLink, an Internet service provider, also sent a letter to Curtis asking for a 30-day delay on the vote, claiming the city did not give ample time or opportunity for other competitors to submit bids for the network. ----------- Your information also contradicts the official Provo website: http://www.provo.org/about-us/current-issues/google-fiber http://www.provo.org/about-us/current-issues/google-fiber Looks like your standard no-bid municipal takeover to me. Socialize the costs, privatize the profits as they say. A serious offer would have had other ISPs at the table to counter-bid against Google. Of course, politics never changes. Google got cozy with the municipality, shut out the competition, made the city pay for its own loans, and is going to privately profit off of the fiber the city built.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      > I don't know why you are twisting the story around, but I'm not inclined to trust you or your data, or your arguments anymore. Uh. I'm not twisting anything, bro. My information came from the International Business Times article that I linked to earlier. I also expect that you haven't read the franchise agreement entered into by Provo and Google [0] or the Fiber Lease agreement [1] or the Asset Purchase agreement [2] or the Network Services agreement. [3] If we read through those (and I strongly encourage you to do so), we discover that the only thing that the International Business Times got wrong was the claim that Google was going to be taking on the financial liabilities of Veracity Networks LLC (the previous company that was in charge of running, managing, and maintaining iProvo) [4]. I could see why they mixed that up... the language in the Excluded Assets section is slightly tortured. > A serious offer would have had other ISPs at the table to counter-bid against Google. Are you basing this on more than just the single complaint from CenturyLink? Look. Google has proven that they're both able to and serious about deploying gigabit municipal networks and pricing access to those networks at a rate that kicks the shit out of anything any other commercial ISP offers. Read the official agreements. You'll see that they're all bog-standard. Actually dig in to Google Fiber's performance and track record (rather than just skimming the froth from some pundit's clickbait). Do some research and discover that what Google is doing today should have been done in the mid 1990's [5], except nationwide. Most of the entities who are scrambling to counter or stop Google (and -generally- municipally-operated fiber) now are the ones who reneged on those promises decades ago. (But were more than happy to retain the incentives and tax breaks.) Another thing. Remember the fact that iProvo was sold to another private company five years before Veracity and Provo decided to let Google Fiber manage, maintain, and upgrade iProvo. [6] In your opinion, how does this situation [7] compare to a city changing the specialist company to whom they contract out power plant operation and maintenance? :) [0] http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2298 http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2298 [1] http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2300 http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2300 [2] http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2296 http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2296 [3] http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2304 http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2304 [4] I bet you weren't aware that there was a commercial entity running Provo's network before Google Fiber came in. ;) [5] Albeit at 40->100mbit symmetric. [6] http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/51766375-78/veracity-iprovo-network-default.html.csp http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/5176637... [7] Namely, Provo switching the manager, maintainer, and upgrader of iProvo from Veracity Networks to Google Fiber.

dragontamer 11y ago

> What do you call it when one company acquires the assets and obligations of a portion of another company [0] for a token amount of money? Fishy. Unless I have complete and utter trust in the larger company. Consider this: Google is the only company right now that has substantial web traffic, and can very easily violate Net Neutrality by making say... Youtube Google-fiber specific. Even if Google doesn't do this, the fact remains that if they continue to grow in the ISP space, their monetary power and political power will grow exponentially. Or, Google can play the tactics of the previous ISPs by degrading their competitor's traffic (such as slower Bing, Yahoo, or DDG performance on their network). Its innately fishy from my point of view. Google gains too much power for a very low monetary investment.

simoncion 11y ago
> [I call that f]ishy. Okay. I guess you don't pay attention much. This sort of thing is not entirely uncommon and frequently entirely aboveboard. :) > Google is the only company right now that has substantial web traffic... What? Netflix pumps twice the traffic of YouTube. [0] > Or, Google can play the tactics of the previous ISPs by degrading their competitor's traffic... Backbone providers (of which ATT is a huge one) can facilitate this sort of thing right now. I wonder why they don't. ;) > Its innately fishy from my point of view. Google gains too much power for a very low monetary investment. You... uh... missed the part where Google takes on the obligation to perform $30 million in near-term improvement, the obligation to pay iProvo's outstanding construction loans for at least the next twelve years, the obligation to cover the $5.25 per month per Provo, UT resident currently paid by each Provo resident. Google is putting a lot more than $1 into this deal. [0] http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-bandwidth-usage-internet-traffic-1201507187/ http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-bandwidth-usage...
- dragontamer 11y ago
  I don't know why you are twisting the story around, but I'm not inclined to trust you or your data, or your arguments anymore. http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/56206589-78/google-network-provo-fiber.html.csp http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/5620658... > But Provo taxpayers will still have to pay off a $39 million bond that the city originally issued to build the network. With interest, taxpayers still have to pay $3.3 million in bond payments per year for the next 12 years. > Provo Mayor John Curtis also revealed Tuesday that the city will have to front additional money that was not mentioned before. > The city will have to pay about $722,000 for equipment in order to continue using the gigabit service for government operations already using the network, such as the operation of traffic lights and police and fire services. Meanwhile, Google will lease the network to Provo city for free for 15 years. ---- > CenturyLink, an Internet service provider, also sent a letter to Curtis asking for a 30-day delay on the vote, claiming the city did not give ample time or opportunity for other competitors to submit bids for the network. ----------- Your information also contradicts the official Provo website: http://www.provo.org/about-us/current-issues/google-fiber http://www.provo.org/about-us/current-issues/google-fiber Looks like your standard no-bid municipal takeover to me. Socialize the costs, privatize the profits as they say. A serious offer would have had other ISPs at the table to counter-bid against Google. Of course, politics never changes. Google got cozy with the municipality, shut out the competition, made the city pay for its own loans, and is going to privately profit off of the fiber the city built.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > I don't know why you are twisting the story around, but I'm not inclined to trust you or your data, or your arguments anymore. Uh. I'm not twisting anything, bro. My information came from the International Business Times article that I linked to earlier. I also expect that you haven't read the franchise agreement entered into by Provo and Google [0] or the Fiber Lease agreement [1] or the Asset Purchase agreement [2] or the Network Services agreement. [3] If we read through those (and I strongly encourage you to do so), we discover that the only thing that the International Business Times got wrong was the claim that Google was going to be taking on the financial liabilities of Veracity Networks LLC (the previous company that was in charge of running, managing, and maintaining iProvo) [4]. I could see why they mixed that up... the language in the Excluded Assets section is slightly tortured. > A serious offer would have had other ISPs at the table to counter-bid against Google. Are you basing this on more than just the single complaint from CenturyLink? Look. Google has proven that they're both able to and serious about deploying gigabit municipal networks and pricing access to those networks at a rate that kicks the shit out of anything any other commercial ISP offers. Read the official agreements. You'll see that they're all bog-standard. Actually dig in to Google Fiber's performance and track record (rather than just skimming the froth from some pundit's clickbait). Do some research and discover that what Google is doing today should have been done in the mid 1990's [5], except nationwide. Most of the entities who are scrambling to counter or stop Google (and -generally- municipally-operated fiber) now are the ones who reneged on those promises decades ago. (But were more than happy to retain the incentives and tax breaks.) Another thing. Remember the fact that iProvo was sold to another private company five years before Veracity and Provo decided to let Google Fiber manage, maintain, and upgrade iProvo. [6] In your opinion, how does this situation [7] compare to a city changing the specialist company to whom they contract out power plant operation and maintenance? :) [0] http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2298 http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2298 [1] http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2300 http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2300 [2] http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2296 http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2296 [3] http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2304 http://www.provo.org/home/showdocument?id=2304 [4] I bet you weren't aware that there was a commercial entity running Provo's network before Google Fiber came in. ;) [5] Albeit at 40->100mbit symmetric. [6] http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/51766375-78/veracity-iprovo-network-default.html.csp http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/5176637... [7] Namely, Provo switching the manager, maintainer, and upgrader of iProvo from Veracity Networks to Google Fiber.