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.'"

24 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. ISPs: stupid, monopolisitic by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:ISPs: stupid, monopolisitic by sqrt(2) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Decades of absurd protectionism is how they achieved those margins. It's their only viable business model at this point. They are terrified of becoming a provider of a commodity product, a dumb pipe for bits that anyone can compete with. There's no easy way for a business to justify readjusting to lower (realistic) profits after raking in unreasonable amounts of money for so long. It'll look like a huge loss to their investors, and not what it really is; a return to sane market equilibrium and healthy competition. Investors will consider the leadership to have failed massively, and they'll be held accountable. So the leaders are doing what they can to stop it. It's a perverse system.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    2. Re:ISPs: stupid, monopolisitic by Sarius64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. On top of this, AT&T wishes to compete with Google as an ISP but under the guise of a telco instead. Whereas in San Diego, for instance, AT&T used their ISP status to force fair use on the existing utility conduits established by Cox and Time Warner. Seriously praying for Google to come to San Diego. Reno too for the rest of the family. :)

  2. A monopoly wants as little competition as possible by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Just to get this straight by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Just to get this straight by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, AT&T is not claiming some ethical and moral right to block a competitor. They are claiming a legal right to do so. They do not spell it out, but it seems to me that they are, also, claiming a legal obligation to do so (although that impression may be a misreading of the reporters interpretation of their statement).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  4. Funny ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  5. Why is Google not a telecom? by Sez+Zero · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Why is Google not a telecom? by Formorian · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe it's narrowly defined as telephone service and VOIP doesn't count. According to AT&T spokeperson, Google even agree's they don't fit the requirement as a telecom.

      So like I posted below, update the regulation to include any form of communication, or if you want to keep it narrow add ISP's. I don't think even if the fed's don't change it, that AT&T has a leg to stand on. The city owns the right of ways and can change what's allowed within their borders IMO. But IANAL.

    2. Re:Why is Google not a telecom? by NapalmV · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because they would fall under FCC Telecomunications Act of 1996, section 702. Which would obliterate their existing business.

    3. Re:Why is Google not a telecom? by jratcliffe · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?

      Pretty much, yes. Good description in the link below. Essentially, Google is an information service provider, regulated under Title 1 of the Telecom Act of 1996. If it were willing to be regulated under Title 2, as a telecom service provider, then it would qualify for pole attachment access guarantees. I fully agree that the language in the 1996 Telecom Act regarding pole access should be broadened to cover Google, but it seems that AT&T has a pretty decent case that it doesn't cover Google, as written. http://www.kandutsch.com/articles/access-to-utility-poles-for-ftth-providers

    4. Re:Why is Google not a telecom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'll google that for everyone else:

      Sec. 702. Privacy of customer information.

  6. Free Market Lies by Daemonik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Free Market Lies by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The entire point of the article is that there is no free market here. So you have drawn the wrong conclusion.

      The problem is that AT&T has been granted local monopoly power over utility poles while monopoly power as the local telecom company. If they were a for-profit company who built and maintained utility poles, they would have incentive to get as many wires onto those telephone poles as they could safely fit. This is why many states are deregulating power by separating the local power company, who maintains the power lines, from the power providers who put power onto those lines.

    2. Re:Free Market Lies by Daemonik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You act as though the regulations came out of a vacuum. AT&T lobbyists created those regulations and their pet congressmen & senators enacted them. Because the regulations limit who can compete against AT&T.

      If corporations had no influence on government, THEN you could cry about government intervention. Every person with a functioning brain, however, knows that corporations are deeply mired in our politics and they heavily influence what regulations will effect them.

  7. How predictable...... by Dega704 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:AT&T? by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:Update federal guidelines by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Google Fibre is not an Internet-only service. It also includes television service, making it analogous to cable providers.

  10. Re:Google will have their way by ron_ivi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    torches and pitchforks parade at the AT&T offices

    Isn't this almost exacty what Eminent Domain laws are designed for. If some private company's blocking use of resources important to public or civic use (those cable right-of-ways) the government pretty much gets to take them and pay whatever it says they're worth. Or do they only use those laws to kick out poor people for huge corporate developers?

  11. Proves the case for city owned fiber... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Free market? Gov't gave AT&T the ROW to begin by raymorris · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  13. Re:Free market? Gov't gave AT&T the ROW to beg by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..the spirit of the original deal.

    ...and thousands of lawyers burst into laughter...

  14. Re:Bury those cables by Shinobi · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  15. Re: Google will have their way by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    google can use the poles, you just have to be a cable provider or telecom

    I imagine that AT&T-owned legislatures will make their certification as a telcom or cable provider about about as easy as it would have been for Malcolm X to get a voter registration card in Mississippi.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."