4 ms·
But I highly doubt Google is planning on offering "Cable Video." In the same way that VOIP is differentiated from Voice Service according to the FCC, offering I
by thrdOriginal 17y ago
But I highly doubt Google is planning on offering "Cable Video." In the same way that VOIP is differentiated from Voice Service according to the FCC, offering IPTV does not require a Service Provider to register as a Cable Franchise. VOIP & IPTV are seen as "applications," not a native service type.
- joezydeco 17y agoGoogle's own press release suggests they're looking for new ways to use ultra-highspeed broadband: Or downloading a high-definition, full-length feature film in less than five minutes. Or collaborating with classmates around the world while watching live 3-D video of university lecture. Now look at how Geneva, Illinois fought off AT&T U-Verse (called "Project Lightspeed" in the experimental phase) because they already had television franchise agreements in place and didn't want to get sued by the cable company: http://www.geneva.il.us/att/Lightspeed.htm http://www.geneva.il.us/att/Lightspeed.htm (Note, also, that Geneva tried to set up their own broadband network and was roadblocked by AT&T. Karma is a bitch.) I'm not suggesting that Google is looking to offer cable TV. I'm just implying that you can't waltz into a town and offer these kinds of services without raising the hackles of the existing companies that are providing utility services in most typical towns. A town might willingly invite Google with open arms, but that doesn't mean it's a done deal by a long shot. Expect lawsuits.
- thrdOriginal 17y agoInteresting, I hadn't heard of that. Of course there will be lawsuits, but my point was that by current definitions they should not be in violation of cable franchise agreements, even if they are allowing users to download full-feature films in < 5 minutes.