Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T Falsely Claimed Pro-Google Fiber Rule Is Invalid, FCC Says (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the true-or-false dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission has given a helping hand to Louisville, Kentucky, in the city's attempt to enforce local rules that would make it easier for Google Fiber to compete against ATT. ATT sued the local government in Louisville and Jefferson County in February to stop a One Touch Make Ready (OTMR) ordinance designed to give Google Fiber or other new competitors faster access to utility poles. Today, the US government submitted a statement of interest (full text) on behalf of the FCC, which says that one of ATT's primary legal arguments is incorrect. ATT -- also known as BellSouth Telecommunications in Kentucky -- argued that the Louisville ordinance is preempted by the FCC's pole-attachment rules. The local ordinance "conflicts with the procedures created by the FCC, and upsets the careful balances struck by the FCC in crafting its pole attachment regulations," ATT's lawsuit said. But that is false, the FCC says. The FCC does have rules ensuring reasonable access to utility poles, but states are allowed to opt out of the federal pole-attachment rules if they certify to the commission that they regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of pole attachments. Kentucky is one of 20 states that has opted out of the federal regime and imposed its own rules, the FCC noted. Accordingly, the federal pole-attachment regulations enacted under Section 224 [of the Communications Act] simply do not apply here," the FCC wrote. More generally, One Touch Make Ready rules are consistent with federal communications policies and regulations that seek expanded broadband deployment, the FCC also wrote.

22 comments

  1. Invalid?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or not valid?!

  2. Where's the punishment? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't ATT be punished for not knowing which regulations they need to abide to?
    Have they been non-compliant in 20 states?

    1. Re:Where's the punishment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AT&T knows perfectly well whether state or federal rules apply. Their lawyers lied about it.

      There's no penalty for lawyers lying... if there was, there'd be no lawyers left. (Some believe that "lawyer" is actually just a misspelling of "liar" and they're actually the same word)

      Captcha: SLITHER So appropriate.

    2. Re:Where's the punishment? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've had dealings with a three lawyers in any detailed way (I've used a couple of others largely for quicky legal advice or escrow). Of the three lawyers I have had significant dealings with, one was my attorney, one was the opposing party's first lawyer, and the other was the opposing party's second lawyer. My lawyer made it very clear to me from the get-go that under no circumstances was I to lie or distort. My statements and any depositions were to be truthful. My lawyer was at the only deposition I was ever involved with mainly to make sure the other lawyer stayed within the bounds.

      Now as to the other party's first lawyer, he did some pretty damned dubious things, one of them in particular which my lawyer viewed as completely unethical. About half way through the case, he removed himself from the case and recommended another firm, which suggested to us that he probably knew he'd fucked up royally. The second lawyer seemed a decent, honest sort who was stuck with a case that should never have been pursued (that's my biased view). In the end he convinced the other party (we were countersuing each other) to accept a relatively small settlement. I was unhappy about having to pay the money, but I did win the war, even if I lost that battle.

      So, on purely anecdotal grounds, 4/5s of the lawyers I've met seemed fairly trustworthy, and for the one that didn't, I prefer to think that he was just plain incompetent, rather than malicious. That, of course, may actually be the worst thing a lawyer can be.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Where's the punishment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah but they're a big corp, so if what they did was "careless" I'm sure it can't also be "illegal". *cough*

    4. Re: Where's the punishment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Among the professionals, it's very difficult to tell the difference between incompetence and malice for those of us who aren't members of said profession.

      It's unfortunate that there isn't a way for most to tell. And it's unfortunate that the professions - law, dentistry and medicine - do a very poor job of weeding incompetence out. They have to something egregious to get thrown out.

    5. Re:Where's the punishment? by Letophoro · · Score: 1
      Just because ATT has attorneys does not mean that they are competent.

      My favorite quote concerning the competency of attorneys as written by the presiding judge:

      Before proceeding further, the Court notes that this case involves two extremely likable lawyers, who have together delivered some of the most amateurish pleadings ever to cross the hallowed causeway into Galveston, an effort which leads the Court to surmise but one plausible explanation. Both attorneys have obviously entered into a secret pact—complete with hats, handshakes and cryptic words—to draft their pleadings entirely in crayon on the back sides of gravy-stained paper place mats, in the hope that the Court would be so charmed by their child-like efforts that their utter dearth of legal authorities in their briefing would go unnoticed.

    6. Re:Where's the punishment? by Xtifr · · Score: 2

      There's no penalty for lawyers lying.

      Actually, there is. The problem is proving it. They're allowed to make honest mistakes, and if you want one punished for lying, you have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was a lie and not an honest mistake. Good luck with that!

      But if you can prove it, they can be fined or in extreme cases, disbarred.

    7. Re:Where's the punishment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the innocent need a lawyer, the guilty can lie for themselves.
                                                                                                          Abraham Lincoln

    8. Re:Where's the punishment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only we could hold them to the same standard as doctors, who aren't allowed to make honest mistakes.

    9. Re:Where's the punishment? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Who incidentally was also a lawyer.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  3. Time spent in Jail by CEO and execs by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0

    But, no matter how much AT&T tells falsehoods, the CEO and other senior execs will spend absolutely ZERO days in jail.

    none.

    nada.

    nyet.

    zilch.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Time spent in Jail by CEO and execs by zlives · · Score: 3, Funny

      yup this is the biggest zero-day exploit out there

  4. Who cares! by ADRA · · Score: 1

    Stall stall stall till the other guy runs out of money / initiative!!!

    --
    Bye!
    1. Re:Who cares! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They weren't exactly picking on commoners. The stalling tactics would still work though. The whole incumbent pole thing is basically for running interference. And it's been working.

    2. Re:Who cares! by rickyslashdot · · Score: 1

      Gee folks - all together now - 1, 2, 3, "FUDD"

      --
      redneck geek
  5. A lesson from this by willoughby · · Score: 1

    If you're getting your legal advice from ATT you need a real lawyer.

  6. Crony capitalism by DaMattster · · Score: 2

    Rather than innovate, the telecoms will sue to keep any advantage they may have. No wonder we're pathetically behind the rest of the world.

  7. what happened to . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happened to the statement of,
    Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

    They are trying to push it through so there is precesidence...

    in the end,, this is pure bs!

    AT&T it seems try and try, again and again.. but yet, allways in the end fail..
    look at: TV, cable, Broadband, Phone(land/Line), PC's, various telecommunications equip..

  8. Go Google Fiber!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It just shows how crooked the current telecoms are with how much they legislate against Google instead of just competing. Afterall, current telecoms have a headstart. They shouldn't be hiring people to hold back the other racers out to help humanity.

  9. Another example of how backwards things are... by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

    In the city where I live (population of 100,000), the choices are Charter or big telecom. I just got a letter from the local telecom cooperative where our lake house is (population less than 1000) to notify us they are installing fiber to the house next spring.

  10. Nunarput utoqqarsuanngoravit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nunarput, utoqqarsuanngoravit
    Niaqqut ulissimavoq qiinik.
    Qitornatit kissumiaannarpatit
    Tunillugit sineriavit piinik.
    Akullequtaasut merlertutut
    Ilinni perortugut tamaani
    Kalaallinik imminik taajumavugut
    Niaqquit ataqqinartup saani.
    Taqilluni naami atunngiveqaaq
    Kalaallit siumut makigitsi.
    Inuttut inuuneq pigiuminaqaaq
    Saperasi isumaqaleritsi.