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.
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.
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 (*#&(@*#&.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.