Slashdot Mirror
Google Fiber In Austin Hits a Snag: Incumbent AT&T
AcidPenguin9873 writes "Earlier this year, Google announced that it would build its next fiber network in Austin, TX. Construction is slated to start in 2014, but there's a hitch: AT&T owns 20% of the utility poles in Austin. The City of Austin is considering a rules change that would allow Google to pay AT&T to use its utility poles, but AT&T isn't happy about it. The debate appears to hinge on a technicality that specifies what types of companies can attach to the utility poles that AT&T owns. From the news story: 'Google 'would be happy to pay for access (to utility poles) at reasonable rates, just as we did in our initial buildout in Kansas City,' she said, referring to Google Fiber's pilot project in Kansas City...Tracy King, AT&T's vice president for public affairs, said in a written statement that Google "appears to be demanding concessions never provided any other entity before. ... Google has the right to attach to our poles, under federal law, as long as it qualifies as a telecom or cable provider, as they themselves acknowledge. We will work with Google when they become qualified, as we do with all such qualified providers," she said.'"
A torches and pitchforks parade at the AT&T offices and the homes of local executives might be required however.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
There's not a lot to say in favor of [local telecom] just about anywhere in the U.S. Their margins are higher than any other substantial industry, and yet they're constantly in fear of even microscopic changes, pushing absurd protectionism through every level of government.
No surprise from ATT, I doubt anyone expected anything from them except obstructionism. Cheers to the City Council for taking action that is obviously in their constituents best interest.
Good luck w/ AT&T monopoly.
AT&T seems to think that the world is still leaning in their favor regarding local "monopolies" for cable & broadband. Once they piss off the new competition they themselves will find out that they can be locked out of areas, or from accessing the new fiber backbone being provided by Google. Also, if AT&T's customers find their access to Google sites & apps are inexplicably suffering from slow connections, well, life's a bitch.
handle this conundrum for their home state corporate patron AT&T
So, just to get this straight, a company who gained its position through a helluva lot of taxpayer dollars, much of it in the form of last mile access on public lands, now decides it has some ethical and moral right to block a competitor.
I say that every single time one of the old telco descendants does this, they are sent a bill with interest for every nickel directly or indirectly they received from the public purse, payable immediately.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Funny how AT&T gets an easement to use public (and sometimes private) lands for this, and then over time it becomes 'their' property to be used at their discretion.
In other words, the incumbent who got there by using public resources is now acting like they're private resources.
Such horse shit, and just more of governments allowing corporations to own what it essentially infrastructure paid for and used by all of us.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
If they are, can't they use the poles under FCC reg? If not, why are they not considered a cable company or telco? Is it because they don't want to follow some regulation that would be required if they have that status?
I thought they owned cell phone towers, not utility poles. i thought cities or the power company owns utility poles. When a utility pole breaks, the police or fire department usually calls the power company, correct? In any event, \I learned something new.
"just as we did in our initial buildout in Kansas City,' she said, referring to Google Fiber's pilot project in Kansas City..."
I thought she was referring to catching mackerel in aid of Lower Skyscrapers for Acrophobics.
This is why free market utopianism is such a crock. Business do not want to compete with each other and will use every ounce of their power & every legal trick they can create to prevent an upstart from disrupting their markets.
Ironically the only way to have a free market is if the government forces them to.
Isn't providing telecom services like internet a prima facie indication of being a telecom provider? Oh, I see they haven't gotten official recognition as a telecom. Never mind.
The "technicality" is that Google wants to act as a telecom / cable company without being listed/regulated as such.
It's reasons like this that Google decided to blaze this trail in the first place. Stunts like this pulled by incumbents are often enough to kill smaller startups and projects, whereas it will likely only be a hindrance for Google.
One thing that catches my eye in the US is that even large cities have wires strung on utility poles. Are excavators too expensive in the States?
It seems to me AT&T's complaint is that Google isn't a telecom or cable provider as defined by federal law. Well back when it was probably defined, dedicated internet companies probably didn't exist or were in their infancy.
All the city is doing is saying yes you have to lease your polls to a ISP also. I don't see the problem.
AT&T is just trying to block competition, which I understand being greedy and they want their monopoly like every other cable co, but they are going to loose.
I wish Fed's would just add ISP's to that list. But if you read the article, the city is right. They don't want a ton of poles in 1 spot just because some douche company won't lease to another company and also construction. The poles are there, let em lease em.
Every company that wants to operate for profit in the United States of America must invest 10% of it Gross income (before expenses) into the infrastructure of the United States of America.
Get your own ditch digger and bury those cables yourself.
Time to send in the Phone Cops to bust some heads! Starting with Dr. Johhny Fever.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Can't Google just register as a Telecom or Cable company? Why isn't that the obvious solution? Why should they be allowed to leverage their massive presence as an outsider to the Telecom/Cable industry to force their way into that market.
So AT&T wants to sunset POTS, but still claim to be a telco? lol
every yahoo (pun intended) with a tin desk, a telephone, and a tie can set up a little telecom company with just a few thousand dollars for the lawyers to draw up the papers. many have. the reason is that they get wholesale rates from every other telecom company on colocation, facilities, duct access, dark fiber, provisioned carriers, and everything including access to the bathroom. it's infinitely cheaper than bending the ears (or passing "campaign contributions" wink wink) to scores of local politicians who are studiously looking over their shoulders. and it gouges the incumbent carriers greatly.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Google is competing with AT%T with a superior product. AT%T wants to sell UVerse and does not have the infrastructure to compete against Google's gigabit to the home. So AT%T is scared shitless and trying to prevent the loss of (possibly) most of their customers to Google anyway they can, making it as difficult for their competitor as possible.
It is not "free market" though, I expect that AT&T has a franchise with Austin that forces them to allow competitive use of their telephones placed in utility easements. They reaped the reward of the franchise, now they need to perform the terms of the franchise and share the poles, despite the fact that is will be their undoing. I say "good riddance" to that...
Which free market preachers and what conundrum? I'm guessing it has something to do with people praising the government for stepping in and telling AT&T "if google is willing to pay, you must let them use your poles", but your post is severely lacking in details.
So AT&T is waving their poles around in Google's face?
I am guessing they received a public easement to put up the poles. Imminent domain could just as easily force them to be returned at cost. If the had paid landowners for the rights, it would at least be more difficult.
I hope AT&T's moated fortress becomes their Alcatraz.
I own an apartment complex with 132 units. We own the fiber/CATV cable/ethernet cables from the complex telcom room out to each unit.
FIOS, RCN, Comcast and DISH are all present in the telcom room. Tenants can order up service from any of those vendors. We also offer an internet only option. If a new vendor wants to offer service to our complex, they have to get to the telcom room, but from their its easy to compete. If Google came along, they could offer service from our telcom room to the entire complex.
This works really well, and I think the concept should work on a city-wide level as well.
City owned fiber, commercial providers on an even footing.
Lower costs, better service.
The city government gave AT&T the exclusive right of way to put up poles all over everyone's property in the first place.
Under existing federal law, that ROW came under the condition that other "telecommunications providers" can lease space on the poles. The city is really just insisting that AT&T comply with the spirit of the original deal.
So we have an exclusive right granted by government, both federal and city, and now the government (still) attaches strings to that government grant. This doesn't really have anything to do with the free market at all.
The town should instruct AT&T to remove their poles from the town owned easements, or let google pay for pole access. Problem solved.
Then sub-lease access to a whole new ecosystem of internet startups that aren't telco/cable either. Then again, this is all based upon the laws/regs which are subject to change.
Havn't seen them in even the smallest town since the 1960's in my country.
Time to provide city/municipality owned neutral right-of-way conduits open to any telecom provider in the US? Sweden has 50+ telcos & low prices. On 1 gig fiber right now
How the hell does a regulated monopoly represent a "free market"?
..the spirit of the original deal.
...and thousands of lawyers burst into laughter...
Telcom's are heavily regulated (FCC, public service commission, et al), and it wouldn't really benefit them in the short term. Long term it could because they would have access to the USF (Universal Service Fund), and possibly even NTCA (Rual broadband) for cost recovery with tax payer dollars.
Obviously the smartest thing for Google would to make a new subsidiary for a CLEC (Competitive local exchange carrier). They might even break even on cost deployment with the cooperate welfare provided for via the various legal means for telecommunications companies.
The only downside to all this would be the necessity to also provide telephony services as well as internet services.
Those telephony services (VoIP) can easily be delivered on the same fiber as their intended deployment, and be completely kosher with FCC requirements for a telcom.
A little more cost upfront could actually help Google turn a profit by working the same system that is currently screwing US citizens.
I always thought it was more about Google telling AT&T, "Live by the sword, die by the sword."
Surely, with all of our experience with what natural events (strong winds / tornados / hurricanes / ice stoems) can do to aerial cables, wtf isn't the city / state mandating that all new utility services are run underground?
It would be stupid to add more poles.
why can't google just build their own poles in the area?
oh wait, they want to keep the cash for themselves and claim the moral high ground
All AT&T is saying is that Google has to declare their operations a "telecom or cable provider" and thus place themselves under federal/local regulations statutiry controls.
No wonder Google wants to have their cake and eat it too.
Is best for the consumer.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
AT&T is absolutely correct that the laws and rules that cover the poles (That AT&T owns!) specifically apply to telecoms.
Google can easily resolve the issue by establishing a shell company like GF-Facilities, LLC. as a telecom. GF-Facilities, LLC. then owns and installs the fiber on the poles and leases transit on said fiber back to the Google fiber project. They can do it for a tax saving loss, to boot!
Skulduggery, it's how business gets done and, trust me, Google knows how to play the shell game!
Who owns the poles? More importantly, who MAINTAINS the poles? In a lot of areas you've got your local telecom but it's AT&T who is responsible for maintaining the physical infrastructure. Verizon, Centurylink, TDS, etc might be your provider. That's great. Kudos to you for living in an area where they run things! When some drunk idiot or a storm knocks over the pole carrying your connection to your house/office, more often than not it's AT&T that your provider contacts to repair things. If they (AT&T) are responsible for maintaining the physical infrastructure that Google is leasing, they should some say in who uses their poles. Other ISP's/carriers do it so Google can to. C'mon Google. Put your big boy pants on and abide by the same rules that your competition follows.
Well if you read the article, you'd see that the city does not want more poles especially when they are existing poles.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
That killed a public WiFi MESH network where I live. These big companies need a big slap.
so google should register with FCC like everyone else
Where I grew up on a farm in rural Denmark, the power lines was put into the ground in the 80's.
The phone lines have been in the ground as long as I can remember. (I'm almost 50 yo)
In the cities this happened earlier.
Now they are working on removing the high voltage lines that is left (above 10kV):
http://jyllands-posten.dk/indland/ECE4063588/hoejspaendingsledninger-skal-vaek/
Niels
corporatism is the end form of each and every capitalism.
Once again, this is why communication infrastructure should be built with tax dollars, publicly owned and leased to ISPs fairly.
Sure, Google is all up in AT&T's shit now, but the enemy of my enemy is not my friend; don't think for a second that Google won't be in exactly the same position decades from now. We'll be dealing with this monopolistic protectionism and technological stifling as long as the lines are privately owned.
I live in a part of town where the utility wires are buried underground, and there's no alley road behind houses. So there aren't any poles for Google to use. Somehow I don't expect it to be one of the first fiberhoods.
A few years ago, Time Warner used a hammer mole thingy to make a hole underground down the backyards, pushing 2-inch conduit pipe behind it, only digging a small hole every other backyard or so to ensure it was going in the right direction. The most amusing part of this was that they used the bottom half of a coke can to cover the leading end of the pipe to keep dirt out. I'm going to guess that TW won't exactly be going out of their way to offer to let Google share their pipe.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
It's a sad old story I remember living through myself back in the late 1990's and apparently nothing has changed. Back then I was one of the founders of long-gone Nobell Communications which was then in the middle of rolling out the first wireless broadband IP network in Austin. The extent and energy that certain organizations, one of which was SBC (who later bought AT&T, but they were not alone) put into obstructing and doing whatever they could to shut down the effort was something that would make works of fiction pale. Finding locations for infrastructure was one of the most difficult jobs and one solution was to use existing poles in certain areas. SBC pulled the same crap back then when we insisted that we were not a telco or cable company and had no intention of becoming one (we did connect and handle IP broadcasts of live music at a number of clubs during SXSW back then, though). It turned out, however, that many pole easements were owned by Austin Energy, not SBC, and, working with them and the City Council, we ultimately got rights to use those utility poles as well as city owned buildings and rooftops. I also remember that at the time there was a huge amount of city-owned dark fiber available. I no longer live there and don't know what the situation is anymore but I know that there are creative people at Google as well as in Austin with a lot of resources at their disposal and I trust that together they will find a way to jump over that thrashing dinosaur.
If AT&T insists on fighting this, I suspect AT&T will not be happy with Google's next logical move: Offering low cost (or free) TV or phone service to meet the requirement.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
An easement is a limited right or interest in the land of another entitling the holder to use, privilege or benefit.
Eminent domain is the legal right and procedures for a municipality to take title and possession of private property for public use.
You might be able to get an easement by using eminent domain, but the more normal process is to purchase an easement. Another way is what happens in a subdivision, where the developer defines where the easements are for such things as utility services (wires, fiber optics, water mains, sewer pipes).
And say "By demanding the easement, AT&T is demanding concessions never supplied to other companies (such as Google)".
If only there were a million other cities actively courting Google to bring their service to them.........
I have no idea why Google just walk away if the city doesn't roll out the red carpet.
Austin needs Google a lot more than Google needs Austin.
where?
google already does this. its $120 plus taxes for google fiber TV package
Your subject + moderation weirds me out.
As has been defined by the FCC that makes anyone who provides access to the internet a "Telecommunications Service Provider" which would entitle them access to the poles.
"In Re Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report to Congress 101 (April 10, 1998) ("With respect to the provision of pure transmission capacity to Internet service providers or Internet backbone providers, we have concluded that such provision is telecommunications.") "
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
You forget why AT&T is all butt-hurt in the first place. All this tel-com regulation makes it much more expensive to upgrade their infrastructure. Google right now is getting tax breaks to do the same thing AT&T could if given the same economic advantage as Google. I mean this isn't Joe-six-pack's MA Bell trying to to start it's own network. It is two of the largest companies in the world arguing that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Google registered as a telecom or cable provider, they would have the same regulations, therefore an even playing field. Since both companies want to provide the same service, there is no reason that one should get boosts over the other.
It seems like you're arguing AT&T's point. Why should they give access to a company that doesn't have to comply with telecom regulations if the deal was that they'd give access to other telecoms?
Then what is AT&T's problem? The two exceptions to utility pole access are cable system or telecommunications providers.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Run the connections through the sewers. as they do in UK, France, and other places. Big benefit: they cannot be toppled by accidents or weather.
Then what is AT&T's problem? The two exceptions to utility pole access are cable system or telecommunications providers.
AT&T's "problem" is that Google insists it is neither a cable system nor a telecom provider ... but wants access anyway.
They have cooperate with telecommunication companies. The internet is telecommunications, therefore a fiber ISP is a telecommunications company and they must cooperate.
If you happen to know of some regulation on "telecommunications companies", including any that are completely irrelevant to the issue, which Google does not abide by, please cite that regulation . AT&T and you seem to be assuming that's the case without mentioning anything specific.
I wouldn't be surprised if their were regulations on "entities holding a government charter (monopoly)". Google has no such government granted monopoly, so those regulations don't apply to them. The federal law doesn't say AT&T has to share with monopoly telecommunications companies, it says they have to lease to telecommunications companies in general.
In many places, burying cables is indeed the right thing to do.
However, in lots of other places, it's more expensive, and even possibly more dangerous to bury than to pole.
E.g.
Underground conduits are far more expensive than poles to install, and maintenance on wire problems underground is far more difficult. Above-ground wires, while prone to some weather problems (wind, ice) are not subject to others (flooding, freezing, overheating). Yes, Virginia, in certain places the ground temperature can get hot enough to be a problem for the coating of wires. In addition, in many places, keeping the wires out of the subsurface means that other infrastructure repairs/breaks/malfunctions doesn't impact them as well. Rodent and similar animal problems are a minor annoyance for pole-wires, while they're a serious problem for underground wires, even ones in conduits. Re-routing pole-based wiring is also far simpler than redoing underground wiring, especially in places where there's no good path around (e.g. highways/railways).
The moral is, there is no one-size fits all solution, and while burying cables is a good choice many places, poles are a better in others.
The city of Austin doesn't want them to, because its ugly and disruptive, which is why the city government is pushing on AT&T to allow Google to rent pole space from AT&T poles, just as Google is renting pole space from the city's owned utility poles.
The poles are private, but stand in public space, right? If AT&T does not want to comply with City will, perhaps there is a way to ask payment for the use of public space? A payment high enough to convince them to cooperate, I mean.
They shouldn't be using the poles anyway. Should bury everything. Costs a bit more, but I'm sure it will reduce outages. All new phone/power/fiber/whatever should be buried. As poles need replacing, all that should be buried as well.
Google is fucked trying to negotiate with AT&T in Tex-Ass. Tex-ass is the worst place to negotiate with AT&T.
The Tex-uns luv their local business. No matter how hard they get fucked by it, and they get fucked without lube either. I know I live there was was raped by AT&T for several years there.
There are plenty telecom providers in Texas. Just work with one to get a contract to build the fiber you want; with a signed IRU (Indefeasible right of use) for 99 years.
The FCC under Chairman Powell during the Presidency of GW Bush, made an interpretation of the laws declaring that cable modem service, absent TV service is an "interstate information service" (Title I) and not a "telecom service" (Title II) under the scope of the Communications Act. http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/2002/nrcb0201.html
ALL of the regulations the Communications Act imposes on Title II companies but not on Title I companies are the set of regulations which "telecommunications companies" must meet and which Google DOES NOT abide by. Title II status is defined without reference to monopoly status, government-granted or not.
On a tech geek note, that exact FCC rule is why the FCC cannot impose net neutrality rules on Comcast so folks here really should have been aware of this.
Do they really want Google to be a telecom, or a cable provider? Do they really need or what that type of competition?
Google, get to buying up a telecom provider, and while you are at it buy a few cable provider as well cox and comcast.
Then what is AT&T's problem? The two exceptions to utility pole access are cable system or telecommunications providers.
They want Google to pay higher taxes and have to conform to the existing industry standards. You know, the ones which make it basically impossible for someone like Google to offer them any real competition.
Then Google can get hauled into court for violating anti-trust laws. If they were to start offering a service for under what it costs them to offer it for the sole purpose of putting a competitor out of business, then they would be violating federal law. There is no way that they could offer such a service at such a low cost as to cause AT&T concern and make money off of it. Pro-tip: not only does AT&T own poles like this in hundreds of cities nationwide, they also own millions of miles of long haul fiber to interconnect all these cities. Google owns none of this, so the price of the services delivered over Google Fiber has to factor in the cost of buying, leasing, or renting space on these poles and long haul fibers.
I see the problem as laws haven't kept up with technology. When the original law was written (1978), there were no such things as ISPs.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
In order to apply anti-trust laws there has to be a monopoly. Google has neither a monopoly in fiber nor TV nor telephone. Using existing anti-trust laws would not likely be applicable.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
They do offer TV.
Phone and cable TV services are required to do certain things that were considered to be in the public interest. Phone companies were required to put in place special infrastructure for priority emergency calls. TV companies were required to carry local broadcast channels if the channel asked for it. Historically this made sense, when the cable networks were built in the US* they were providing totally different services, so it made sense for them to be subject to different regulations.
However since then techology has changed, you can use the phone over your cable modem using VOIP and you can watch TV over your telco provided internet connection and you can watch TV and use VOIP over your IP based fiber connection. In many cases the VOIP and IPTV services are even bundled with the internet connection.
So you have three groups of companies providing effectively the same services but subject to vastly different regulations. IMO there is a need to decide if those regulations are still in the public interest and if they are deemed to be in the public interest to figure out how to apply them fairly to last mile communication providers who use vastly different infrastructures.
So I would agree with you that the regs need to be reviewed and updated but I also agree with the GP that google seem to want a privilage that is given to telcos and cablecos without taking on the responsibilities that come with being either being a telco or begin a cableco and I could see why existing telcos and cablecos would be rightly pissed off about that.
* Here in the UK things played out a bit differently, our cable companies were also phone companies from the start and ran analog phone pairs alongside the cable TV coax.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register