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 (*#&(@*#&.
They can compete, but it is more profitable not too.
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
"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.
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.
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.