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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
The power company (owned by the city) owns 80% of the poles. AT&T owns the remaining 20%, presumably because they needed poles in some locations where there was no power pole.
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?
So AT&T is waving their poles around in Google's face?
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.
How about Google provides the cash to the city, the city buys up the AT&T poles (via eminent domain).
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
..the spirit of the original deal.
...and thousands of lawyers burst into laughter...
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.
Utility poles are going the way of the dodo in many places in Sweden, even some pretty sparsely populated areas. Buried cables survive harsh weather better, are not as frequently damaged as utility poles are by vehicles etc, so the maintenance costs for the utility companies have gone WAY down, meaning that the long-term costs of trenching are actually lower.
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).
What in the hell are you babbling about? It's copper. Copper underground, copper above ground, copper under water, it's all the same. Transmission efficiency for identical diameter wire is identical, regardless of physical location. In fact, because buried power lines either rest in the ground directly or are run through conduit or are laid on cable trays inside of cable tunnels, heavier gauge wire can be used, since there are no poles being stressed by extra weight. The result is higher efficiency for buried cables, not lower, because it's safe to use heavier wire.
Google is not getting tax breaks for their current buildout. Kevin Lo, head of the Google Fiber rollout, specifically says that's not even a criteria. They are much more interested in gaining access to poles, getting accurate maps of where poles are, and in getting rapid approval of their construction permits.
AT&T, on the other hand, already got over $200 billion in tax breaks to deploy broadband, and didn't. So no, "all this regulation" did not make it more expensive to upgrade their infrastructure. It made it much much cheaper to upgrade their infrastructure, and instead of actually upgrading their infrastructure, as the law said they must, AT&T and their antecedents booked it as profit and paid their executives over a billion dollars in bonuses.
So yeah, let's level the playing field. Let's take $200 billion from AT&T and give it to Google.