Slashdot Mirror


AT&T Sues Louisville Over Google Fiber (wdrb.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Louisville was one of the cities identified in 2015 as a potential Google fiber location? Since then, Louisville has completed the pre-work Google requires and, most recently, unamiously passed an ordinance to remove legacy bureaucratic speed bumps to installing fiber on existing utility poles. This applies to any telco wanting to add infrastructure, so that's good, right? Well, not according to AT&T. They are suing the city to block this ordinance and prohibit the city from using its infrastructure as it sees fit to provide better broadband to its citizens.

157 comments

  1. Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If so, the Louisville City Council should damn well be able to cite the authority that allows them to tell AT&T to put Google equipment on AT&T's poles.

    1. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by halivar · · Score: 5, Informative

      The poles are under the jurisdiction of the state Public Service Commission. In other cities, Google has met with the commission and AT&T, with the end result of Google Fiber using the same poles as AT&T. In this lawsuit, AT&T is saying they want the city council to follow the same procedure followed in other cities where Google Fiber exists currently.

      This post is not a defense of AT&T's prior anti-municipal broadband tactics; just playing devil's advocate against a bloody red meat summary.

    2. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by arbiter1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      They don't own right to say what can or can't be installed on those pole's. Public utilities have right of way type access to use those poles to provide service to people, AT&T is just just being AT&T, bunch of (*#&(@*#&.

    3. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      True but that's not the point. The point is it allows other companies to go out there and screw around with AT&T's equipment without AT&T's permission or knowledge. That is the problem here.

      the ordinance, which was also opposed by Time Warner Cable, would allow a third party like Google to temporarily “seize” AT&T’s property – without notice, in most cases, according to the lawsuit

    4. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I see no good reason to allow Google's subs to fuck with AT&T equipment without coordination. Good to prevent AT&T from cockblocking them, but this is much closer to letting Bill Gates have someone tow your car a block so he can park on the same street, and not even telling you.

    5. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by thaylin · · Score: 2

      However what is the damage here. IS google liable for any damage it causes as a result of messing with ATTs equipment or not? If not then there is a problem, if so then I dont see the problem.. Well I can see a small problem, but one that can be overcome.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    6. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Wouldnt it be more like allowing bill gates to move your car a few inches because you double parked and prevented him from parking where he is legally allowed, and needs to park?

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    7. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by omnichad · · Score: 5, Informative

      The US legal code?

      A utility shall provide a cable television system or any telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled by it.

      Source: U.S. Code > Title 47 > Chapter 5 > Subchapter II > Part I > Section 224

    8. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by acoustix · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And I'm sure the existing poles are probably already loaded to capacity. Power, telephone, cable already on the poles. Now they're going to add aerial fiber?

      Who pays for the replacement poles because of the additional wear and tear?

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    9. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Charcharodon · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Lol, anyone with a ladder can go screw with AT&T's gear, and in some cases the access is conveniently on the ground..

      After looking at all the garbage bolted to the side of my house by the various services that have been added over the years before I bought the house, I grabbed some cutters and pulled off everything but the FIOS box and the electric meter. After that I pulled up all the lines out of the ground all the way to the nearest pole.

      Was it technically their property when I "seized" it, sure, but if they wanted it so bad maybe they should have come and got it once service was canceled. The shit on the pole is no different. AT&T are just being cunts because 1 they don't want to have pay to go remove unused/outdated gear, and 2 they don't want anyone else doing it because then it will block competitors from moving in.

    10. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Bright+Apollo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "âoeGoogle can attach to AT&Tâ(TM)s poles once it enters into AT&Tâ(TM)s standard Commercial Licensing Agreement, as it has in other cities,â the statement said. "

      PUC doesn't have authority to tell a municipality who can or cannot connect to a pole. Everyone isentitled to use the poles. Poles are, contrary to AT&T's old conception, not owned by AT they are owned by the town, and a town can and does wield eminent domain to possess property for a public good. Armed with some key funds from Google, Louisville can not only win, but win a landmark decision.

      AT&T is overreaching. They are contracted to maintain infrastructure, and the poles are part of it, but AT&T is not going to start ripping up poles unless they want an even worse outcome in the courts. Those poles are owned by the muni, it's just up to the muni to remember that fact.

    11. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by mi · · Score: 0

      Louisville City Council should damn well be able to cite the authority that allows them to tell AT&T to put Google equipment on AT&T's poles.

      The poles belong to the city, but they already have AT&T equipment installed. This crucial detail is omitted from the incendiary write-up, but is write at the beginning of TFA (emphasis mine):

      AT&T said Louisville Metro does not have the authority to permit a third party like Google Fiber to remove, alter or move AT&T’s equipment on utility poles

      Whether or not the authority is there, I can understand, why AT&T is pissed — they did have to comply with the "legacy bureaucratic speed bumps" themselves, but now a major competitor comes in and the city lays down the red carpet.

      That said, the cities nation-wide better get on with removal of such speed bumps ahead of time — our lack of Internet-access choices is due to that first and foremost.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    12. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative

      Many cities have ordinances about the control of telephone poles. However, many of them also have ordinances that the owners must allow reasonable access to other parties. Sometimes it is for a fee. For example, Comcast should be to use telephone poles installed by AT&T. No part of the ordinance compels AT&T (the owner) to work for Comcast and that's not what the ordinance or removal of such ordinances is about.

      I seem to remember a similar case in Austin when Google Fiber started there. AT&T would not grant Google the right to use the poles for any fee. The city intervened and said AT&T has to grant right of use for a reasonable fee or the city might take ownership under eminent domain.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    13. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The stuff you ripped off and dug up only affected you and no one else. If you go start fucking around with AT&T's equipment on a pole or in the utility easement without letting them know about it you could wind up disrupting service to hundreds or thousands of their customers. That would be a BFD.

    14. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uhm... fiber lines to a telephone pole is the equivalent of an ant on a house...won't even notice

    15. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poles? I guess in pretty old (pre-1975) neighborhoods poles were common. When I see poles in residential areas, I always think "wow, I am in the wrong part of town" (as it is generally the "low rent" district with drug addicts, high crime, etc.). But I guess in some other areas poles are still common? The house I grew up in was built in 1969 - 1970 and it was one of the first neighbohoods around our area that had everything below ground. I've never lived in a place that has poles...

    16. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You win the thread. All other comments about whether this is permissible or not are irrelevant. Thank you for settling that issue conclusively.

      Now, on to the myriad of other arguments and flame wars we can have about this!

    17. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be more like allowing bill gates to move your car a few inches because you double parked and prevented him from parking where he is legally allowed, and needs to park?

      Bill Gates wants Apple to give the FBI keys to its phones and you want me to give him the keys to my car? (and as if Bill drives anymore)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    18. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny how when AT&T pays for an irrevocable, unlimited, and permanent right to use a city's infrastructure, they get mad when city decides that agreement isn't going so well.

      But when customers use "unlimited" internet to its fullest extent, they are thieves and need to be booted off the network via usage caps.

    19. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Except it's AT&T (and other's) live equipment that the city of Louisville tried to give Google permission to fuck with. Mind if I tow your car a few blocks so I can park in front of my house?

    20. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You win the thread. All other comments about whether this is permissible or not are irrelevant. Thank you for settling that issue conclusively.

      Now, on to the myriad of other arguments and flame wars we can have about this!

      You are ignoring what "Nondiscriminatory access" means and what the rest of the regulation says. The new ordinance is in conflict with the very next sentence in that code because by allowing google to move AT&T's equipment at will they could reduce reliability:

      (f) Nondiscriminatory access
      (1) A utility shall provide a cable television system or any telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled by it.
      (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a utility providing electric service may deny a cable television system or any telecommunications carrier access to its poles, ducts, conduits, or rights-of-way, on a non-discriminatory[1] basis where there is insufficient capacity and for reasons of safety, reliability and generally applicable engineering purposes.

    21. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US legal code?

      A utility shall provide a cable television system or any telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled by it.

      Source: U.S. Code > Title 47 > Chapter 5 > Subchapter II > Part I > Section 224

      Left out a few details.

      (f) Nondiscriminatory access
      (1) A utility shall provide a cable television system or any telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled by it.
      (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a utility providing electric service may deny a cable television system or any telecommunications carrier access to its poles, ducts, conduits, or rights-of-way, on a non-discriminatory[1] basis where there is insufficient capacity and for reasons of safety, reliability and generally applicable engineering purposes.

      (g) Imputation to costs of pole attachment rate
      A utility that engages in the provision of telecommunications services or cable services shall impute to its costs of providing such services (and charge any affiliate, subsidiary, or associate company engaged in the provision of such services) an equal amount to the pole attachment rate for which such company would be liable under this section.

      (h) Modification or alteration of pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way
      Whenever the owner of a pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way intends to modify or alter such pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way, the owner shall provide written notification of such action to any entity that has obtained an attachment to such conduit or right-of-way so that such entity may have a reasonable opportunity to add to or modify its existing attachment. Any entity that adds to or modifies its existing attachment after receiving such notification shall bear a proportionate share of the costs incurred by the owner in making such pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way accessible.

      (i) Costs of rearranging or replacing attachment
      An entity that obtains an attachment to a pole, conduit, or right-of-way shall not be required to bear any of the costs of rearranging or replacing its attachment, if such rearrangement or replacement is required as a result of an additional attachment or the modification of an existing attachment sought by any other entity (including the owner of such pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way).

    22. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You win the thread. All other comments about whether this is permissible or not are irrelevant. Thank you for settling that issue conclusively.

      Now, on to the myriad of other arguments and flame wars we can have about this!

      You are ignoring what "Nondiscriminatory access" means and what the rest of the regulation says. The new ordinance is in conflict with the very next sentence in that code because by allowing google to move AT&T's equipment at will they could reduce reliability:

      (f) Nondiscriminatory access
      (1) A utility shall provide a cable television system or any telecommunications carrier with nondiscriminatory access to any pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way owned or controlled by it.
      (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a utility providing electric service may deny a cable television system or any telecommunications carrier access to its poles, ducts, conduits, or rights-of-way, on a non-discriminatory[1] basis where there is insufficient capacity and for reasons of safety, reliability and generally applicable engineering purposes.

      AT&T provides electric service now?

    23. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald, is that you???

    24. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Soluzar · · Score: 1

      Actually it's more like Bill Gates wanting to park out on the street so that he can visit someone, and the business who have their HQ on that street saying "Nu-uh, customers only."

      It's a public street. They don't get to decide who can use it.

    25. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on where you live. Many areas in LA where homes go for well over a million still have poles.

    26. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Large sections of this country still use poles. You are sure judgmental as fuck. Some places won't even let you pay to bury your cable from the pole.

    27. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      Bullshit and you know it. AT&T wants to stop Google. Period. Unless you agree with the provision:

      Metro Councilman Bill Hollander, the ordinance’s sponsor, said earlier this month that the changes “will make the whole (installation) process faster and make the community more broadband ready.”

      Under current rules, each provider would have to send a contractor to move its equipment to make way for new services like Google Fiber, officials have said.

      “Depending on where you are in Jefferson County and which pole you’re talking about, there could be five or six different trucks dispatched in six months or more to get everybody moving their lines to make room for the last attacher,” Ted Smith, chief of civic innovation for Metro government, told the Metro Council’s public works committee in early February.

      Did you catch that Potsy: There could be five or six different trucks dispatched in six months or more to get everybody moving their lines to make room for the last attacher.

      So unless Kentucky really likes to be a road block to business, they could care less what Jefferson County does.

    28. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by xfade551 · · Score: 1

      I think the parent's title is a valid question. More often than not, the poles are carrying power and are owned by the electrical utility. Occasionally, you see shorter poles with only communications cable, but not that often in most places.

    29. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      AT&T owns the poles... But not the land the poles sit on.

      The land is owned by individuals, who are forced by the legal power of the Louisville City to let AT&T keep their pole their without charge.

      AT&T wants to use that land rent free? Fine, they have to abide by the rules the city gives them.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    30. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Which is why the city changed it jack ass. That's the point of the new ordinance, it eliminates the road block.

    31. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      Even in good parts of town the main runs are on poles or are a long a main road.

    32. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      Owning the poles Is irrelevant. They don't own the LAND the poles sit on. The Louisville City Council passed a law to force residents to let AT&T put up poles on the residents land without paying the residents anything. If you own a house then there is a telephone pole sitting on your property, they don't pay you rent, they never 'bought' the land, and you can't stop them from entering your property to fix their poles. Even if you don't use ANYTHING on the pole. You could own the land but not have power, cable, or telephone, and AT&T still get's to put up the pole and enter your land.

      Basically, AT&T is upset that Lousiville is treating AT&T the same way AT&T treats the people that own the land.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    33. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Specificly the issue is about the ordinance allowing Goole to move AT&T's equipment that exists on the pole now.

      So it'd be like if Bill Gates wanted to move the delivery vehicle that as parked in front of the business without notifying the buisnes or the devivery vehicle's driver so he could park in it's space and the buisnes is saying "that's stupid, find you own space or ask the driver to move".

    34. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Wouldnt it be more like allowing bill gates to move your car a few inches because you double parked and prevented him from parking where he is legally allowed, and needs to park?

      Bill Gates would be wrong to move your car. If the city owns the lot, he could at most petition the city to tow your car.

      (But who are we kidding, BG could just drop a load of cash to pay for the parking lot and tow your car immediately, if he really wanted.)

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    35. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      BG did not side with the FBI. Microsoft sided with Apple, and BG personally is sitting on the fence.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    36. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Lets hope that it does go to court. It would be nice to see Louisville win this in federal court. If so, then it allows many municipalities to do something similar, even when state law says otherwise.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    37. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      I thought I'd seen every analogy on slashdot... guess not... ladies and gentlemen, "the bill gates" analogy has arrived.

    38. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the article again... AT&T is suing because the ordinance allows Google to relocate AT&T equipment, that is a no-no.

    39. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      THus why in most states you need to be certified to do any sort of pole work.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    40. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by halivar · · Score: 3, Funny

      THus why in most states you need to be certified to do any sort of pole work.

      We better head over to the gentlemen's club and make sure the dancers are properly credentialed.

    41. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Well I can see a small problem, but one that can be overcome.

      You don't see a big problem with one source of Internet being able to mess with another source's backbone without so much as a please or thank you?

      How many times does someone's AT&T internet have to stop working before they might think "hmm, there's Google, a new player, maybe I'll try them"? You don't see an economic advantage to disrupting the other guy's services when you install your own identical service on the same pole?

      Yes, eventually the broken service will be fixed. It will be at the expense of the existing company, with potential loss of customers to that company, and maybe eventually there will be a lawsuit to recover those damages, to the benefit of nobody but a cadre of lawyers.

    42. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by wyattstorch516 · · Score: 1

      Who defines what damages are a result of Google messing with the equipment. If AT&T loses customers because the service happens to go into the toilet soon after Google messes with their equipment how much are they entitled to collect? Or does Google just get away with replacing the broken equipment?

    43. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, that does not say that the access shall include the right to move, adjust, or modify any other carrier's equipment already installed upon that pole.

      And in this case, when AT&T installed their equipment, the law said they had to get everyone else on the pole to come out and make space for them. Now the law says that Google can everyone else's stuff around without notification. This is discriminatory in Google's favor.

    44. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my town Alabama Power owns their poles and Bellsouth owns their poles. When the city started running fiber to connect up traffic lights they had a blanket agreement with Alabama Power that allowed them to connect to AP poles. However Bellsouth refused to grant access to their poles.

      The solution? The city purchased their own pole-setting truck and started planting their own poles right next to the BS poles.

    45. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      This is discriminatory in Google's favor.

      It's more just in favor of any newcomer. Google won't be the only one. and AT&T can likely use this to their advantage when doing their own maintenance.

    46. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      AT&T wants to use that land rent free? Fine, they have to abide by the rules the city gives them.

      They did.

      But they also have the right to object to a change in the rules that allows Google installers to move AT&T equipment. What happens when Google installers "accidentally" break AT&T service when they move a cable?

      If AT&T breaks their own stuff because screw it up when they move it to make space for Google, that's one thing. AT&T can schedule the moves in a systematic way and provide for enough people to do it. What this new ordinance creates is a situation where Google can come in and break AT&T services in 83 different places all at once. AT&T will find itself needing to bring in extra crews to take care of the problem that Google created.

      No, AT&T is right on this one.

      I've seen a few silly car analogies on this one, but here's one that is appropriate. Your street has public parking but doesn't have spaces marked. There's a section of street in front of your house that's just two car lengths long, and you park in the middle of that space. Can your neighbor hire a tow truck to push your car over to make space for him to park, or would you rather that he ask you to move a bit? What if that tow truck causes damage to your car? Allowing Google's installers to move AT&T equipment around is asking for trouble and solves nothing.

    47. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      It's more just in favor of any newcomer.

      Which just happens to be Google. It's discriminatory in favor of newcomers. The word still applies.

      and AT&T can likely use this to their advantage when doing their own maintenance.

      AT&T doesn't need to move everyone else around when they do maintenance. They already have space and equipment on the pole. And it creates just as much of a problem when you say that AT&T can do it -- do you think AT&T should be able to move Google's equipment around at their whim? Do you think AT&T really wants to have the liability that this would create?

    48. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Federal law states that Telcoms have access to poles(right of way), but Google Fiber is not a telcom. It's up to state or local laws to include Google Fiber as a class of business that has access to the poles. No, not anyone has access to poles.

    49. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Do you think it should take weeks of cooperation to move a single nail? Or should the job just get done with no harm to anyone? If there's damages, sue for damages - otherwise, just trust each other and get along. It seems pretty reasonable.

    50. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Do you think it should take weeks of cooperation to move a single nail?

      Pretending that it is "mov[ing] a single nail" to move everyone else's equipment on a pole to make room for your own is a bit disingenous.

      Or should the job just get done with no harm to anyone?

      If the job could be done with a guarantee of "no harm to anyone", sure.

      If there's damages, sue for damages

      So AT&T customers have to put up with the outages, AT&T has to pay extra for repair callouts, and the lawers get fat.

      otherwise, just trust each other and get along.

      If we could "just trust each other" there would be no need for any of the laws we have now. Do you really want to take the position that we should "just trust" large mega-corporations to cooperate with each other, especially when it will be the consumers who are the victims of any failure to do that?

    51. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how when AT&T pays for an irrevocable, unlimited, and permanent right to use a city's infrastructure, they get mad when city decides that agreement isn't going so well.

      I wasn't aware that the city was kicking AT&T off the poles.

      What's that? They aren't? You're a lying sack of shit? Thanks for clearing that up.

    52. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      If the federal government came and told Kentucky not to do something then Kentucky officials would be up in arms about state's rights and the overly broad reach of the fds. But it's apparently ok if the state officials get to tell the locals what to do or not to do. Maybe "state's rights" really means keeping power in the state house instead of keeping power local to where it is used?

    53. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Wouldnt it be more like allowing bill gates to move your car a few inches because you double parked and prevented him from parking where he is legally allowed, and needs to park?

      No, it's more like allowing Bill Gates to park his car in the unused parking space in your driveway because you built that driveway on top of a public right of way.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    54. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      And, if your car happens to be hanging over the center line, allowing him to move it over slightly, provided that doing so is not expected to cause any damage to your car, but requiring him to give you thirty days notice if doing so would even temporarily cause your vehicle to stop working.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    55. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      AT&T said Louisville Metro does not have the authority to permit a third party like Google Fiber to remove, alter or move AT&T’s equipment on utility poles

      Whether or not the authority is there, I can understand, why AT&T is pissed — they did have to comply with the "legacy bureaucratic speed bumps" themselves, but now a major competitor comes in and the city lays down the red carpet.

      Chances are, AT&T didn't have to comply with them, because they were one of the first couple of utilities on the pole. Thus, there was no need for them to move anybody else's equipment before stringing their lines.

      Also, AT&T is seriously distorting the truth there. Google is allowed to move AT&T's cables only if they can do so without causing any service disruptions, which means they most certainly are not allowed to "remove or alter" AT&T's equipment, just move it.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    56. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by mi · · Score: 0

      I'm not really defending AT&T, but we should not be surprised by their negative reaction. They are a business and worry about their bottom-line, which is now threatened by a very serious competitor.

      My point was, the problem is not AT&T, but the local governments. Why were the "speed bumps" mentioned in the write-up — or the "road block", as oh_my puts it above — on the books to begin with?

      Every time a preacher on this site denounces America's "lagging behind" in high-speed Internet, the chorus responds with calls for government intervention — be it municipal WiFi, or municipal cabling, or FCC forcing existing ISPs to do this and that.

      But in reality, government is the problem — laying down cables is the easy part. Getting the regulatory approvals is hard...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    57. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eminent domain, right? Would this not be for the greater public good?

    58. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by igjeff · · Score: 1

      Actually, in Louisville (I'm a lifelong resident and have been following this issue pretty closely for quite some time) the poles *are* owned by AT&T...well, actually by AT&T and our local power utility (Louisville Gas & Electric, LG&E)...about 60% by LG&E, about 40% by AT&T...with a smattering of others owned by others like TWC. But that's not actually relevant here. This isn't an issue about who gets to attach to the poles...that's regulated and new providers such as Google are allowed to attach to the poles, there's no debate about that, and AT&T isn't fighting that.

      What AT&T *is* fighting in the make ready process that the city modified in the ordinance passed. Traditionally, for a new attacher to attach to a pole, anyone that has wires on the pole (excluding LG&E, power cables are up on the poles passed the safety exclusion zone...none of this has any implications for LG&E at all) has to come out and move where their wires attach on the pole to make room for the new attacher. This, also, is regulated. AT&T, and whoever else is on the pole *has* to do this to allow a new attacher (assuming the pole can handle the new attacher...that's all part of the permitting process that is done before any of this ever comes into play) room to attach...but they can take their own sweet time about it. One of the Metro Council members recounted how AT&T held up a road construction project for *18 months* because of how long they took to come move wires to new poles. The "One Touch Make Ready" process that was adopted by the Metro Council (Metro Louisville is a merger of the old city of Louisville and Jefferson County governments, thus "Metro Council") allows the new attacher to hire a contractor to do all of the make ready work in one shot if it won't cause any outages (there are some other considerations that come into play if there is a reasonable expectation that the work would cause outages). *This* is what AT&T is throwing a hissy about because they don't want anyone else touching their *wires*.

    59. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by igjeff · · Score: 1

      Funny quirk here. AT&T doesn't actually have a franchise with the City of Louisville. Back in 1886, our state legislature granted AT&T a statewide license to operate telecommunications infrastructure statewide.

      So every new operator that provides service in Kentucky has to get local franchise agreements in place wherever they want to provide service, but AT&T can just go at it willy-nilly.

    60. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by igjeff · · Score: 1

      I haven't checked this specifically, but I suspect Google *is* a telecom. All it takes is a filing with the state utility commission (the Public Service Commission, in Kentucky).

      Also, TWC had wires up on the poles before they were a telecom, you don't actually have to be a telecom to put wires on the poles.

      All you need is a franchise agreement with the city. (Well, except for AT&T, which was granted a statewide franchise by the state of Kentucky back in 1886)

    61. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by igjeff · · Score: 1

      From what I hear, the state Public Service Commission is completely ok with the ordinance that Metro Louisville passed. That's some hearsay, but it's pretty in-line with what the PSC would like to see happening for fostering competition.

    62. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by igjeff · · Score: 1

      Yes, the ordinance explicitly included provisions for inspection and correction of problems when these moves occur.

    63. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by igjeff · · Score: 1

      None of that is in debate here in Louisville. The part 2 there only concerns with whether there is space on the pole, and if the pole is strong enough to carry the wire. That's all handled as part of the permitting process for being allowed to attach.

      The controversy here in Louisville is about how the make ready work happens *after* the permit is issued. Who gets to move the wires around to make the room available to the new attacher on a pole that has already been determined to have enough space and be strong enough.

    64. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Why are the promulgating eyesores like poles, when anyone sensible has been u=putting infrastructure in the ground for decades.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    65. Re:Does AT&T own the poles in question or not? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      TWC is a cable company, yet another federally granted class of business that has right of way access. Being a telcom includes a lot of regulation baggage. I doubt Google Fiber is a telcom. Google Fiber is an ISP, which is not recognized as a class of business with right of way access.

  2. AT&T knows it cannot compete in the market by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So it resorts to the courtroom to try to stop its competitors.

    1. Re:AT&T knows it cannot compete in the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They can compete, but it is more profitable not too.

    2. Re:AT&T knows it cannot compete in the market by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Versus resorting to dealing with the city council. Both courts and the city council are branches of government. Both would rule on the same issue. Is one of them illegitimate? Which one? Why?

      Consider reading the article before getting all hyped up and performing the usual outrage-theatre on this. It has actual info.

      The court will rule. The phony drama and the silly cheerleading will be forgotten. Google fiber will roll out on schedule. Some money might or might not change hands between mega-corps -- who cares?

    3. Re:AT&T knows it cannot compete in the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. They have some spreadsheet which illustrates that if lawyers can delay Google for two months, the additional two months of pre-competition billing rates will more than make up for the cost of the lawyers. This is merely a corporate revenue optimization problem, and the people involved are doing their jobs.

    4. Re:AT&T knows it cannot compete in the market by kheldan · · Score: 1

      AT&T and pretty much all other providers of connectivity to the Internet are all living in a house of cards, and I think they know that; all it'll take is one good stiff breeze to knock it all down, they know it's inevitable, but they're thrashing around in defiance of it anyway. Just like the recording industry with the advent of the MP3, they all realize that they're operating under an outdated business model, and rather than accept that and adapt, they're fighting it with anything they can come up with.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    5. Re:AT&T knows it cannot compete in the market by sabbede · · Score: 1
      Might be how it looks at first glance, and is probably a motivating factor, but this suit isn't against Google, it's against a city that is exceeding its authority under State law and violating the 5th Amendment. The law in question permits a company like Google to move other companies' equipment around without even asking, let alone coordinating. In Kentucky, only the State Public Utilities administration has the authority to set those rules.

      Like you, I saw this and thought, "Those bastards!". Then I read the actual article.

  3. Not quite by symes · · Score: 4, Informative

    It would seem like AT&T are moaning about other contractors, like Google, removing AT&T equipment. This is nothing about trying to prevent Google from hooking up fiber. They kind of have a point as well. Who decides when something is legacy, needs retiring and removal? Sure, I hate AT&T as much as the next guy, I enjoy my ridiculously high speed fiber and feel sorry for those who don't have it. But at least read the article.

    1. Re:Not quite by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Moreover these are not the city's poles, but AT&T's, and they have a contract for 3rd party access, which Google is paying elsewhere.

      So unless Louisville can point to their contract with AT&T where Louisville strongarmed them into pre-agreeing to stuff like this in exchange for, say, 100% coverage, it does indeed exceed the city's authority.

      The OP badly misstates things about this being the city's stuff.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Not quite by Rob+Lister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. While "one touch make ready" seems economical, google (or any other contractor) has no right to touch/move/reconfigure ATT equipment without prior notice and consent. The complaint is pretty clear; the city has no right to make this determination. All of which is not to say that ATT aren't still a bunch of dicks.

    3. Re:Not quite by MrKrillls · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No. It's ATT making up a story that others will screw up their equipment. It would be exceedingly poor PR for Google to come in and wreck other people's connectivity and get caught doing it. This is ATT being obstructive, not ATT protecting themselves from big bad Google. And yes, sure, in redoing a whole city, some item will get damaged, at some point, but the kind of scenario ATT portrays is silly.

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
    4. Re:Not quite by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what Verizon does when they install FiOS. They remove your copper hookups. Then they flatly deny having done so.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    5. Re:Not quite by operagost · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. Google might do their best to avoid cutting off service for AT&T, but mistakes happen. And if they do, they can point to the ordinance as a defense.

      Imagine if it were the reverse, you were a Google fiber customer, and AT&T wanted to move Google's equipment. Would you be worried that "whoops, we broke it" would happen when Deathstar came out?

      Regardless, the main issue is whether the town even had the authority, and it may be that the state reserves the power to regulate public utilities in this manner. Each municipality regulates its own easements, but that doesn't mean they necessarily dictate what happens with poles and underground lines.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:Not quite by Kohath · · Score: 2

      It would be exceedingly poor PR for Google to come in and wreck other people's connectivity and get caught doing it.

      Yeah. That's why no cable or internet provider ever messes up anyone's connectivity. Can you imagine a world where someone complains about a broadband provider? I'm sure the executives at these companies get panic attacks just thinking about the idea.

    7. Re:Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly what Verizon does when they install FiOS. They remove your copper hookups. Then they flatly deny having done so.

      But they own the copper hookups they are removing. They don't want to maintain them.

    8. Re:Not quite by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What kind of authority does the city have over widespread infrastructure installed but poorly maintained and documented by utilities?

      A utility comes into a city decades ago, gets approval to install infrastructure. Years pass and as their business declines, they reduce the amount of maintenance, documentation and record keeping on this infrastructure. The base is still useful, but is cluttered with abandoned, undocumented and unused components.

      The city has a desire to improve services similar to those provided by the utility and believes it is in the best interest of the city and its citizens to repurpose that infrastructure for other similar services, and such repurposing may require a new utility provider to remove legacy components in order to utilize the base infrastructure.

      On one hand, you can say AT&T owns the poles and that Google's installers might corrupt the working parts of their infrastructure accidentally and in ways that are hard to fix and may irreparably damage their business relationships.

      On the other hand, you can argue that AT&T created any risk through negligent maintenance of their infrastructure, and that their primary purpose is to hinder the expansion of a competing business, either by blocking access outright or creating a burdensome review process for many obviously obsolete component the new utility may remove.

      I'm also curious what contractural agreements the city has with AT&T over placement and use of their poles. Is the city contractually obligated to let AT&T do whatever it wants with those poles, forever? Are they never subject to new ordinances, maintenance of the poles and components, etc?

    9. Re:Not quite by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 0

      RTFA: "Depending on where you are in Jefferson County and which pole you’re talking about, there could be five or six different trucks dispatched in six months or more to get everybody moving their lines to make room for the last attacher,”

      Got it moron.

    10. Re:Not quite by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 0

      You really have no idea how these wires are used on the poles do you...

    11. Re:Not quite by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Utilities generally only have a maintenance contract to build and maintain transmission equipment along public easements (that's a swath of land that crosses private property for placing transmission conduits the greater good, like electrical and telephone lines, gas lines, sewer lines, etc.). So while technically AT&T owns the poles, they do not get to decide what gets put on them. The poles are only allowed to exist because of the easement, and the local government controls the easement. Unless the utility agreement is extremely unusual, AT&T's contract would be to maintain the poles and lines for anyone the city decides to give access. If they tried to play hardball, the city could simply not renew AT&T's contract and hire someone else to maintain the lines. AT&T would then have to remove all its poles and lines from the easement. They could in theory throw a tantrum and tear down all the poles and line, but the cost-effective thing to do would be to sell the poles and lines to the new maintenance company. (Same thing happens when you build property on leased land, like what happens with trailer park homes.)

      Some utility agreements make the distinction even clearer. For example, where I used to live, you could pick from among hundreds of different companies to provide your natural gas service. The Gas Company had the maintenance contract for the gas lines, but were prohibited from actually selling gas directly. They had to sell it through a subsidiary (Sempra Energy), competing with hundreds of other different providers who also sold gas. The Gas Company's cut showed up in my bill as a transmission charge, at a rate regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, and they were required to charge the same rate to all natural gas providers. (Of course as a commodity, gas is gas. The gas you got probably didn't actually come from the company you bought it from. But as long as the numbers all add up - you pay for x cubic ft of gas from XYZ gas company, and XYZ gas company pumps x cubic ft of gas into the distribution pipes on your behalf - the accounting all works out in the end.)

    12. Re:Not quite by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      No. It's ATT making up a story that others will screw up their equipment. It would be exceedingly poor PR for Google to come in and wreck other people's connectivity and get caught doing it.

      Ironically, I know from professional experience that this does happen -- only it's the other way around. The incumbent provider will damage the infrastructure of the "new guy in town" instead. I used to work for a cable overbuilder in the Southern California and the larger entrenched provider, one of the "Big Three", was found to be cutting our lines.

    13. Re:Not quite by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

      I was wondering about that but thought I was being too paranoid.

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
    14. Re:Not quite by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

      The key would be getting caught - and publicized. Other than that, you are right on.

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
  4. If you can't be 'em, sue 'em by evolutionary · · Score: 2

    This is typical corporate philosophy. they know they can't compete with Google's resources or technology, so they try to block them. It won't really work of course, but they figure they can slow them down until they figure something. Maybe an alliance with Verizon...

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
  5. Monopoly fights to protect its monopoly by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

    In the real world, their ain't much "Free" in most "Free market" capitalism.

    Film at eleven.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:Monopoly fights to protect its monopoly by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "We used to be a regulated monopoly, but we couldn't compete. So we reorganized as an unregulated ISP and we still can't compete. So, can we please have the good parts of each, and have things all our way?"

      "F" you, AT&T. The job of a government is to do what's good for its citizens. You want deregulation? Then you compete with all comers, including a community ISP. They'll pay you rent on your poles, just like anyone else would have to.

      Gee, it's a whole different competitive landscape when it's not just AT&T and Comcast and their sweet little (alleged) price fixing deal.

  6. There's your problem by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

    most recently, unamiously passed an ordinance

    There's your problem. If everybody agreed, AT&T would have a much harder time fighting this.

  7. That sound you hear is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America collapsing. No Republicanism nor whatever Trump is can save it.
    Only a mega dose of deflation can.

    1. Re:That sound you hear is by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      A "megadose of deflation" is the Fight Club solution. Sure, in the long term, everything might be better, but you're going to have a REALLY FUCKING PAINFUL short to medium term. Massive deflation means anything bought on credit is suddenly MUCH more expensive.

      You're destroying the village to save it.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  8. turnabout is fair play by technosaurus · · Score: 2

    AT&T thought it was fine and dandy when the city passed the ordinance that placed an easement on people's property, so that AT&T could use the land for utility poles and subterranean lines. They could always repeal the whole easement and give them the minimum time required by law to remove the equipment if AT&T keeps pressing the issue further.

    1. Re:turnabout is fair play by Mycroft-X · · Score: 1

      Think they'd require AT&T to remove their whole pole, or would cutting it off just below ground level suffice?

    2. Re:turnabout is fair play by technosaurus · · Score: 1

      In many cities, as part of the easement, the initial utility buys and installs the poles which are then owned by the city. The city can use eminent domain to procure the required land to place the poles. In return the utility gets to use them for a specified period of time and the city can allow other utilities to use the poles. It all depends on the local laws at the time and how it was set up.

  9. In Utlity world, its called joint use agreements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Power lines on the top of the poles and other utility lines at specified heights. Every one needs to get permission from pole owner to put/modify equipment on them. Its also a revenue for the pole owners. Kind of paying rent to "attach" to a pole.

    I always thought fiber was underground ...

  10. Did the submitter bother to RTFA? by tippen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You've got to wonder if the submitter even read the article it links to. That summary is remarkably misleading.

    Regardless of what you think about AT&T generally, it's pretty clear they are in the right on this one. The city overstepped its authority.

    1. Re: Did the submitter bother to RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did it really? Or is it a case of ATT knowing they are about to lose business and they are in a panic to stop it. Another case of "we can't compete let's take them to court". Sad really.

      From what I understand Louisville should win this hands down. It's not like Google is going to go fuck up ATT poles. Besides they are only allowed where they are because of Louisville. If it wasn't for their approval ATT wouldn't have been allowed to lay the poles.

    2. Re:Did the submitter bother to RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the city has full control of utility poles and right of ways... AT&T is just being a whiny baby. They just don't to share their special treatment.

    3. Re: Did the submitter bother to RTFA? by tippen · · Score: 1

      Did it really? Or is it a case of ATT knowing they are about to lose business and they are in a panic to stop it. Another case of "we can't compete let's take them to court". Sad really. From what I understand Louisville should win this hands down. It's not like Google is going to go fuck up ATT poles. Besides they are only allowed where they are because of Louisville. If it wasn't for their approval ATT wouldn't have been allowed to lay the poles.

      Read the article. AT&T isn't trying to block Google from using their poles.

    4. Re: Did the submitter bother to RTFA? by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AT&T isn't trying to block Google from using their poles.

      Of course, not; no incumbent telco would ever do such a thing! AT&T just wants to very carefully and deliberately ensure that the equipment is relocated correctly on the poles, and if that delays Google Fiber's rollout for a decade or two, well, that's just the unavoidable price of caution!

      (I'm sure the fact that AT&T's "GigaPower" rollout somehow always ends up ahead in the service queue is just a coincidence...)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:Did the submitter bother to RTFA? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Actually no they didn't. But then I guess you don't know dick about easements - which is what this is.

  11. Only one possible response by MitchDev · · Score: 2

    All of Louisville needs to BOYCOTT AT&T, and then same goes for other cities and CableCo's that pull this $#!+....

    1. Re:Only one possible response by Kohath · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Also boycott everyone who has ever used an ATT phone or done business with ATT. Because boycotts work great.

      Or you could read the article and not be a mindless tool for everyone who tells you a story you want to hear.

    2. Re:Only one possible response by MitchDev · · Score: 1, Troll

      Or you can suck my balls.

      The details of this story point to the summary being misleading, but the base underlying problem of the cablecos fighting any attempt at competition is still valid.

      ANd you are really fucking stupid if you think boycotting anyone who ever used an AT&T product makes sense, but then again, you are probably a Trump sheep...

    3. Re:Only one possible response by Kohath · · Score: 1

      ...but then again, you are probably a Trump sheep...

      Did someone tell you a story you want to hear about Trump too?

      (BTW: I don't support Trump, or ATT, or Google. Or Internet outrage dramas.)

  12. Ridiculous Jurisdiction Overreach By Louisville by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why is Louisville City Council legislating about the poles?

    That is a job of the Warsaw government!

    1. Re:Ridiculous Jurisdiction Overreach By Louisville by space_jake · · Score: 2

      With a little more polish you could refine this into A-list material.

  13. Re:In Utlity world, its called joint use agreement by Shatrat · · Score: 2

    90% of fiber is aerial. It costs 2-4 times as much per mile to bury it, so that's usually only done in urban areas, along railroads, and in areas prone to hurricanes and other extreme weather.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  14. It's lies and FUD by MrKrillls · · Score: 3, Informative

    "ATT says they will suffer "irreparable harm". They want us to imagine Google will shut down the whole city and blame ATT for it. That would be irreparable. In the real world, those much more minor things that WILL happen are entirely able to be repaired.

    "Unless the Court declares the Ordinance invalid and permanently enjoins
    Louisville Metro from enforcing it, AT&T will suffer irreparable harm that cannot be redressed
    by recovery of damages. For example, AT&T will be forced to comply with a preempted
    ordinance, will be improperly subjected to regulators at multiple levels of government, and will
    suffer a loss of customer goodwill. A permanent injunction will advance the public interest as
    defined by Congress and the FCC."

    Buncha lies.

    --
    Don't step on the baby.
    1. Re:It's lies and FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AT&T has no customer goodwill to lose.

    2. Re:It's lies and FUD by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      ... and will suffer a loss of customer goodwill.

      Hey, there are only three little old ladies left who like AT&T. If they lose even one, that's a 33% drop in their remaining good will. And that's irreparable, 'cause they're not making any more of those.

    3. Re:It's lies and FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see the data that indicates it's even possible for AT&T to suffer a loss of customer goodwill...

    4. Re:It's lies and FUD by MrKrillls · · Score: 1

      I have a "complicated" relationship w ATT. They have done a decent job with my own cell connectivity, but situations like this keep pushing my buttons. Just an hour ago, a new rep at their store offered up a couple of excellent deals I had never heard of. So, now my stance is that the people are good but the company has a ways to go.

      --
      Don't step on the baby.
  15. Re:In Utlity world, its called joint use agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Utlity world, its called joint use agreements

    Uhh, no. Joint use agreements are only legal in Colorado and Washington state.

  16. poles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which third world country still uses utility poles for wires?
    I though nowadays all wires are run underground.
    Can't google do the same?

    1. Re:poles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe it or not, there are still parts of the world where you can swing a dead cat without hitting a sheep. The entire world isn't a slummy megalopolis yet.

  17. Re:In Utlity world, its called joint use agreement by PPH · · Score: 1

    This.

    And it's a complicated issue. Vertical and horizontal clearances between conductors and other equipment have to be maintained to comply with the NESC (National Electric Safety Code). Utilities, usually under the supervision of the states utilities commissions, establish policies for who can attach their stuff to poles, how it is to be attached (usually governed by the NESC) and who must pay what to relocate their equipment should it not be in compliance or should another utility come along and request pole space. Existing utilities move their own stuff, but they can be reimbursed by the newcomer, depending on the agreements. This appears to be what AT&T is objecting to: work being done on its equipment by third parties, sometimes without consulting them.

    I always thought fiber was underground ...

    It can be, but often if poles exist it's cheaper to hang it there than dig up or bore underground.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  18. The ordinance allows Google to move existing lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article:

    "Prior to the ordinance, Louisville wasn't exactly broadband friendly. For Google and other companies to install new equipment would have taken weeks of coordination.

    “If you have to add a line and three lines have to be moved you got to call three different companies, you got to wait for them to schedule the move, you have to wait for each of them to come out and move theirs and then you can finally go in and add yours,” Councilman Kevin Kramer said.

    The One Touch Ordinance is just that. With one touch, one visit, the company installing new equipment is able to move existing lines."

    If I were AT&T I would push back too.

  19. Poles are normally privately owned by sjbe · · Score: 2

    PUC doesn't have authority to tell a municipality who can or cannot connect to a pole. Everyone isentitled to use the poles. Poles are, contrary to AT&T's old conception, not owned by AT they are owned by the town, and a town can and does wield eminent domain to possess property for a public good.

    I can't speak for this case in particular but in many cases the poles ARE owned by AT&T or some other private entity. They might be owned by a third party like the power company. In fact it's kind of uncommon for the poles to actually be owned by the local municipality. There are laws governing use and access to the poles but they may very well be privately owned. For example the poles outside my house are owned by the local power company. The phone and cable companies pay the power company to utilize them. If the pole gets damaged it is the power company's responsibility to fix the pole. The local government does not and never has owned the poles near me.

    1. Re:Poles are normally privately owned by David_Hart · · Score: 5, Informative

      PUC doesn't have authority to tell a municipality who can or cannot connect to a pole. Everyone isentitled to use the poles. Poles are, contrary to AT&T's old conception, not owned by AT they are owned by the town, and a town can and does wield eminent domain to possess property for a public good.

      I can't speak for this case in particular but in many cases the poles ARE owned by AT&T or some other private entity. They might be owned by a third party like the power company. In fact it's kind of uncommon for the poles to actually be owned by the local municipality. There are laws governing use and access to the poles but they may very well be privately owned. For example the poles outside my house are owned by the local power company. The phone and cable companies pay the power company to utilize them. If the pole gets damaged it is the power company's responsibility to fix the pole. The local government does not and never has owned the poles near me.

      My reading of the article on the law suit is that it isn't about who owns the poles. The problem is that the new ordinance has language that allows Google to require AT&T to re-position AT&T equipment on the pole at AT&T's expense. I'm willing to bet that the agreements that Google made with AT&T in other areas required Google to pay at least some of the expense. Which, personally, I think is fair.

    2. Re:Poles are normally privately owned by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the new ordinance has language that allows Google to require AT&T to re-position AT&T equipment on the pole at AT&T's expense.

      No, it seems that the ordinance removes the "requirement" for AT&T (or any other provider) to move their equipment, allowing Google to come in and move other company's equipment around.

      The One Touch Ordinance is just that. With one touch, one visit, the company installing new equipment is able to move existing lines.

      That's a recipe for lawsuits right there. Google hires someone to come in and move AT&Ts cables and AT&Ts service stops working. Oopsies. Sorry.

      The fascinating part of the links is that Google isn't promising to come in and install fiber, and that AT&T is investigating their own gigabit installs. So both companies are looking at doing it, but neither one is promising anything.

    3. Re:Poles are normally privately owned by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Poles are typically located in right of ways. Even if privately owned, they're still heavily regulated because they're on public or even 3rd-party private land.

    4. Re:Poles are normally privately owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except in reality both companies probably hire from the same pool of contractors... so this isn't a big deal. All it means if the contractor messes up insurance will pay for the fix.

    5. Re:Poles are normally privately owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The law basically allows one crew to move all the lines on a pole up/down to make room for new lines. So instead of having to wait around god knows how long for 6 different crews to move their wires a couple feet, now one crew can do it. Not that they must be certified and follow local laws. Google can't just replace shit as they please... it's about moving wires.

  20. Re:In Utlity world, its called joint use agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Alaska, Oregon, and DC had just joined that club. Depending on how things go, California, Ohio, and Illinois may join the club later this year.

    It will be interesting how long New Hampshire holds out, given the Free State Project.

    As prohibition comes to an end, it will be very telling which parts of the country value liberty and which value puritan hysteria.

  21. Golden child and the cash cows by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm with AT&T on this. Google is trying to pull an Uber, and claim it's not subject to telecom laws since it's not a telecom. It's leveraging all sorts of goodies--many great benefits to the local citizens and thus desireable perks-- to get the govt to look the other way. But really if AT&T has to follow the regulations and google is providing an analgous service, this is not really a level playing field.

    AT&T may be slowing down progress here but they are also getting screwed too. SO take all the utiltiy taxes and regulations off AT&T and let them compete. But the cgovt can't do that. theynot only don't have all the jurisdictional powers to do that, they also need the money they raise from telecom fees and such.

    It's a tricky situation in which granting favors to the golden child is not good policy even if its good for progress.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re: Golden child and the cash cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is the playing field ever level? I haven't seen one yet, not one.

    2. Re:Golden child and the cash cows by Bengie · · Score: 2

      Internet is not telcom. If it was, net neutrality wouldn't even be talked about. We could spin this the other way. Since AT&T uses poles for their internet services, those internet services should fall under telcom regulations.

    3. Re:Golden child and the cash cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > AT&T may be slowing down progress here but they are also getting screwed too.

      Now THIS is Capitalism.

      Everybody says Capitalism is all about profits and the right to make a buck by providing a service. Well, it's not -- at least, that's not the whole story.

      Capitalism is also about losses. Things that can't be written off by suing people or governments. If someone new comes up and finds a new way, well, too bad, you lose.

      Except in this case AT&T needs not to lose. Instead of slowing everyone, why not create a new business and pull an Uber over Uber? If Google did it, do the same. Use the same incentives, go for the same line of activity.

      Unless you can't. That's bad but please be a good dinosaur and die. How long will The People bear this situation without throwing the cargo on the river? It's laws made so that the Big Studios don't lose, then laws such that gas car makers don't have electric competition, then no action to ensure free formats, instead making "de facto" (i.e. monopolistic) "standards" the only "choice". I'd like what are you calling this game?

      Because Capitalism used to have Competition. And it was nice, because it was all about the consumer getting better service for less money.

      Apparently the idea now is keeping profits at any cost...

    4. Re:Golden child and the cash cows by igjeff · · Score: 1

      Hardly. Google is going out of their way to comply with regulations. They are *also* trying to get those regulations change, for everybody, because it benefits them, sure, but they certainly aren't trying to skirt the regulations.

      BTW, you don't have to be a telecom to put wires on poles...all you have to have is a franchise agreement with the city.

      Well, unless you're AT&T, in which case you were granted a statewide franchise by the state legislature in 1886, so they don't have to go in and negotiate franchise agreements with each individual municipality that they want to provide service to in the state.

      So, how's that level playing field now?

  22. This stuff makes me anti-Libertarian by rbrander · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just retired from nearly 30 years with my local water/sewer utility. No large business is highly efficient, but this one was pretty good as large businesses go; and there was certainly no money wasted on activities actively harmful to customers.
    For the first half of my career,I was their IT manager. I could never stop contrasting how the basic water utility worked with how IT providers worked. We painstakingly figured out how much cheaper it was to serve commercial customers that bought water in bulk from residential customers, so that we could work out fair rates for the commercial buyers. Anybody wanting to hook in anywhere could do so for the exact cost of our construction (couldn't even add on a percentage to our costs). Anybody setting up in any registered city lot had to have infrastructure brought to their property line. Everybody got the same rates.

    Meanwhile, in IT, anybody who had a networking protocol used it ruthlessly to raise the rates you had to pay to join that network; AppleTalk, Token Ring, DECnet, the works. One thing that "Kids these days" don't appreciate is how one networking protocol that could be provided by many competitors brought down those artificial costs to something like how we work.
    Every other form of customer control - intellectual property ownership of, say, Windows or control of parts that could repair Apples - was invariably and instantly used by every player to artificially raise costs for the consumer.
    And we had control of *WATER* - life itself - what could we charge if we could back that up with cops charged with destroying any wells anybody dug or confiscating bottled water? Many dollars per gallon, of course; only the well-off could shower daily. You can see why we had to be a public utility like the roads!

    On which topic, what if a monopoly provider controlled the public roads? You'd be paying a buck a block to drive them.

    When I read stories like this, I want to tear my hair; they all sound so perfectly pointless, struggles over an imaginary problem. Times have changed. "Information Superhighway" was an instant joke, but the analogy between public roads and the Internet is pretty close in terms of it being "what you must use to go to work, go to market, communicate business". It should all be PUBLIC infrastructure, usable to all at the same rates, provided by that ultimately neutral actor, a government bureaucracy where nobody in it makes one dime more or less when it charges more or less. Employees charged only with accounting costs as closely as possible and charging only those, zero profits, with completely open books and responsible to a democratic body.

    Then anybody could rent access including any commercial amount of bandwidth, no lawsuits, no tears.

    We should re-wire the continent with all-fiber-to-the-home; and the whole lot of it should be owned by local municipalities and utility districts; their stewardship of it regulated by their States, and that regulation overseen by the Feds. From my career, I trust that system, it seems to work with water. I sure as hell don't trust any commercial arrangement I've seen about telecomm; not one I've seen in my whole life. Private actors can't be trusted to use any control of it honestly.

    1. Re:This stuff makes me anti-Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS!! Except that it can't happen in the US - there are laws against it. Note also that there ARE private utilities in the water business, and while their rates are somewhat regulated they tend to be considerably higher than nearby public operations, so the basic premise above still holds. Then there are penalty rates etc. during droughts - at least in CA, public agencies cannot charge more than their cost, period, as a recent court case emphasized. So public water utilities can't use rates to encourage conservation - but private companies can, and have done so in spades. PROFIT!! Of course, on the good side, the areas with private water utilities have also conserved much more than most of the areas with public utilities have.

    2. Re:This stuff makes me anti-Libertarian by rbrander · · Score: 2

      Sorry you got modded down. Just tossing in the comment that we supported water conservation. We spent money on advertising, and worked over 20 years to force the City to go all-metered, when it had been optional flat-rate in the 80's. Our closest brush with politics, and hoo-boy, were we scruntinized that our reports on the effects of various water-conservation policies were opinion-neutral, no attempts to sway City Council would be tolerated. Imagine a telecom somehow being required to provide neutral facts to a regulatory body! Instead, they play them like violins with hugely slanted information.

      If conservation had been a much more important public priority, we could have enforced it without making profits. Just pass a Council regulation that all water rates would be doubled and the new 100% "profit" be handed over to the libraries or something. But new computerized meters could also have charged the same amount as always for your first five gallons per day, and then turned a signal on in your house to let you know you were now paying triple. Again all "profits" to something that saves tax money somewhere else or provides a public service.

      Conservation ain't it; there's likely something that private can do better in water (or bandwidth) provision than public, but I don't know what it is, myself.

    3. Re:This stuff makes me anti-Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we had control of *WATER* - life itself - what could we charge if we could back that up with cops charged with destroying any wells anybody dug or confiscating bottled water? Many dollars per gallon, of course; only the well-off could shower daily.

      You just gave every libertarian a massive, raging erection.

    4. Re:This stuff makes me anti-Libertarian by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A public utility is quite good when what you want is service delivery, like power, water, sewage, renovation are quite well-defined services that don't really change much. We had a public telecom company here in Norway, it worked okay for delivering phone calls. But when customers wanted new technology like ISDN and ADSL the rollout was slow, the prices high and being a monopoly they had very little incentive to become more progressive or effective. Here in Norway the fiber rollout is a three-way race between telecom, cable and power companies and they've been quite aggressive since the first to cover a market usually don't leave enough for a runner up. Right now the market share of fiber is 28% and rising quick.

      It is a challenge that the competition post-fiber is almost non-existant and open to gouging, but right now I wouldn't mess with this business model. There has been talk about forced opening of content services, like we had on phone lines. Basically that the company must lease the fiber line to others so they can deliver TV, Internet etc. but we're not there yet. I think the trend of Netflix etc. in practice will get there ahead of any regulation anyway. And I suspect we'll see more subsidies for rural areas, already we have quite a few public incentives to speed up the roll-out. Maybe once we hit 70-80% coverage we'd go back to having a public utility, but today? I think it'd just grind everything to a halt.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:This stuff makes me anti-Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for working with the people, for the people; by the people even. To protect our liberty.

      Discussions about the commons, by the money, for the money and with the money, sicken me too and ultimately were what ended my fling with libertarian propaganda as well.

    6. Re:This stuff makes me anti-Libertarian by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Sorry you got modded down.

      The grandparent post wasn't modded down. Anonymous Cowards start at 0.

    7. Re:This stuff makes me anti-Libertarian by JeremyR · · Score: 1

      In (some of) the suburbs of Salt Lake City, we have exactly what you describe. The fiber infrastructure is owned by the cities, but the municipal network doesn't offer any retail services. Those are provided by "conventional" ISPs, of which there are about a dozen that customers may choose from. The incumbent telecom companies are also invited to participate (but so far have declined to do so).

      Market solutions only work when there is actual competition, which I'm not sure has ever existed in wireline communications in the USA. I think this model is the next-best approach, as it eliminates wasteful "last-mile" redundancies while preserving competition where it matters most.

    8. Re:This stuff makes me anti-Libertarian by rbrander · · Score: 1

      Jeez, thanks...but I was just working for (1) a paycheck and (2) because water services protect public health. I worked out that each of us "saves two lives for every year we work"...in the sense that if Calgary had the water problems of rural India, they'd lose 2500 citizens a year to waterborne disease, and the utility has just over 1100 employees. If I could evangelize that career choice here, it's a way more unambiguously "good" a job than almost anything.

      The "liberty" of Calgarians to not be stuck up with high water prices from a monopoly, was protected by...Calgarians that voted for the public policy of publicly-owned utilities.

      Just to reply to the guy that pointed out that private utilities often work, too, I agree; met many such opposite numbers at conferences. Whether to go public or private is a fair question, but I'd counter that the private utilities must be tightly regulated, including regulated profit. And THEN they tend to provide that slanted information on their costs. Calgary spun off its electrical utility as a "separate" company, owned by the City, but separate from all the dead weight of the HR, Finance,and IT internal departments and a lot of other bureaucratic baggage, so they could compete in the new privatized electrical regime the province invented.

      A few years later, we were discovering the top five executives there all made more than the City Manager; like four times as much. Just slipped those raises past the governing board with a bunch of double-talk about "market values" until it hit the papers. Suddenly their salaries plunged...and nobody quit. So much for market values. I'd have to suspect crap like that goes on in every private utility.

      Ah, here's how that worked out. After the scandal, the mayor cut them by 20%...and now they've pulled them right back up again.
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/... ...the City Manager still makes $350K, I think. And the new "EnMax" corporation hasn't saved Calgarians a dime on electrical rates. The free market is not automatically a genius. Incidentally, that whole new privatized electricity regime the Province put in 25 years back, was promptly gamed by a little California company called Enron to rob Albertans of billions and it now has some of the highest electrical costs in Canada. Not saying privatization never works, just saying it cost a lot of money on this try.

      I also quite agree with the Danish comment that public utilities are dumb about any service provision more complicated than selling one standard thing. Absolutely. I wouldn't have trusted us to market parkas to Eskimos, we were a bunch of engineers. All I'm talking about the municipality owning and renting out are the wires - or fibres, rather - and perhaps also some very basic standard service. For everything beyond basic connectivity, a rich, diverse marketplace of service providers that can all rent access to the same fibres at a standard set of prices would be encouraged.

    9. Re:This stuff makes me anti-Libertarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think of myself as being pretty libertarian when considering how the government relates to individual citizens. I've never believed in corporate personhood, however, and the notion that anything "libertarian" should apply to the activities of an organization the size of ATT is repugnant to me. Unless organizations include in the structure of how they're organized ways to specifically prohibit the effect, the collective psyche of an organization will regress down the evolutionary tree as the size of the organization grows. I expect an organization the size of ATT to have about the moral capacity of an amoeba, and I figure they should be regulated accordingly. I'm sure the PR departments of large corporate entities find it advantageous to profess that these companies should be granted as much or more liberty than an individual person, but there's no cause to believe that the word "libertarian" applies to them any more than there is cause to believe anything else spewed forth by corporate PR.

    10. Re:This stuff makes me anti-Libertarian by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Utopia was terribly managed, the commission was played like a fiddle by the telecom consultants they hired. They had no independent experience on the board and had far too many cities hoping to turn this into a profitable agenda used to offset costs rather than a utility and their hired consultant told them exactly what they wanted to hear to keep the billable rates going. They wasted millions of dollars.

    11. Re:This stuff makes me anti-Libertarian by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      Except that you're water analogy falls apart. Indeed, water and the unnecessary building of dams and the politics that evolved around water has arguably hopelessly corrupted the entire political system.

      If it hadn't been for Carter, we'd still be building entirely unnecessary dams for purely petty corrupt political motivations. We're still reeling from the long term impact of an incompetent and corrupt process that's given water rights to people who shouldn't have them. It's INSANE to GIVE a foot acre of water to a Nevada farmer for two dollars when it costs one hundred to deliver it.

      You are absolutely correct though, private actors can't be trusted, but neither can the politicians.

  23. Google hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google Fiber has been around for a couple of years already and anyone can verify that it's come to nothing. In Austin, unlike other services that are offered and consumers contract, it was up to consumers to go around their neighborhoods getting commitment to the service, and only the would Google think about bringing it to the neighborhood. Moreover, not any neighborhood, but only a handful within a 10 or 15ml radius, or thereabouts. Adding more insult, mostly wealthy neighborhoods, with a couple of poor ones for good PR. Ah, but a state representative did get a job with Google afterwards.

  24. Awful lot of shills for AT&T by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 0

    I guess AT&T needed people to troll for them....nice...

  25. Re: Does AT&T own the poles in question or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One truck per month? For a half-day job at most.

    This is an outrage that cannot be allowed. How can anyone be expected to coordinate a single vehicle very ~30 days? This is madness I tell you.

  26. I'm a declarative statement, damn you? by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

    Louisville was one of the cities identified in 2015 as a potential Google fiber location?

    That was the lead sentence of the submitted summary, do sentences just end with whatever punctuation they want :

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  27. Re:In Utlity world, its called joint use agreement by technosaurus · · Score: 1

    That may have been the case in the past, but today's trenchers make short work of burying pipes and cable, its probably closer to 1.5 to 2 times the cost these days. Then the maintenance cost is significantly reduced afterwards.

  28. Fucking hell timothy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Louisville was one of the cities identified in 2015 as a potential Google fiber location?

    So was it, or wasn't it? Starting an article with a half-assed statement ending with a question mark makes you look like an idiot. Oh wait, we already knew you were an idiot. Do your job and publish a decent article for once.

  29. Maybe misconstrued? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok if (big IF) AT&T originally helped build said infrastructure planning and installment with the city they should have some say in it. Theat is the only way I can see AT&T having a leg to stand on.

  30. AT&T using poles and Google wants to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just can't imagine the joy I'll feel when the Cable and Internet providers are declared public utilities.
    The description of them using poles - owned by power companies ( utility ) - seems to put them into the utility category.
    Who uses poles? Utilities, of course.
    Does the power company use the internet? Yes, to control and maintain power.
    Cities use the internet, to control lights, receive camera feeds.... but only as a public service ( utility ).
    Hospitals and government agencies use the internet ( public service - utility ).
    So how come the internet - used as a utility by other utilities and used as a utility by so many others, is not a utility?

    Oh... sorry... The Lobbyists and bought-off officials ( FCC and state/local governments ) haven't decided it is a utility yet.
    Had enough of the corruption and corporate rule yet?

    1. Re:AT&T using poles and Google wants to by sabbede · · Score: 1

      At least in Kentucky, it looks like the poles are the public utility.

  31. Re: Does AT&T own the poles in question or not by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    I would suggest that it would be better to read that as 5-6 trucks at the same time, for months at a time. Installation isn't a truck a month operation.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  32. Enough already by wyattstorch516 · · Score: 1

    When are governments going to realize that getting gigabit Internet access will not turn their towns into tech meccas? This is just more corporate welfare, no different than using public money to build a new sports stadium or bribing factory owners with tax breaks to remain in town. Eradicate government waste, keep taxes and regulations low, watch the prosperity follow.