Judge Dismisses AT&T's Attempt To Stall Google Fiber Construction In Louisville (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: AT&T has lost a court case in which it tried to stall construction by Google Fiber in Louisville, Kentucky. AT&T sued the local government in Louisville and Jefferson County in February 2016 to stop a One Touch Make Ready Ordinance designed to give Google Fiber and other new ISPs quicker access to utility poles. But yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge David Hale dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, saying AT&T's claims that the ordinance is invalid are false. "We are currently reviewing the decision and our next steps," AT&T said when contacted by Ars today. One Touch Make Ready rules let ISPs make all of the necessary wire adjustments on utility poles themselves instead of having to wait for other providers like AT&T to send work crews to move their own wires. Without One Touch Make Ready rules, the pole attachment process can cause delays of months before new ISPs can install service to homes. Google Fiber has continued construction in Louisville despite the lawsuit and staff cuts that affected deployments in other cities.

Comments

Where's the Oral Argument?

[bogaboga]

I always enjoy listening to the Oral Arguments.

Can any member here point me to any audio or video?

Re: Where's the Oral Argument?

[Darinbob]

Now I can see why the case was dismissed with prejudice if that's the typical AT&T argument.

good

[Osgeld]

Fuck you ma bell and whatever name cable conglomerate, we want the ability to choose some one else, and unfortunately the small guys cant do it and it takes something like google to pry open that tiny little crack

Maybe once there is realistic competition the rather heavy price we pay for frankly shit service will correct itself

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, I think the needless hyperbole is all we need. Hyperbole is magic, because it always comes true.

Re:good

[Tailhook]

single fiber cable

I think I prefer the lots of cables spaghetti approach. Redundancy is a thing; it has real value. Also, it's a lot harder for big brother to put a microscope on multiple alternative services their inevitable churn.

If there is only one cable and alternatives can't emerge then there will always be some rent seeker with control over it, and that rent seeker will eventually find some rationalization for jacking up rates and getting owned by some big vertical interest that wants monetize is harder. The magical competition fairy could fix this permanently.

And your parade of horribles "spaghetti" probably isn't a legitimate concern. Once you have more than about 3 alternatives the margins are so low that 4 and 5 won't bother unless it really becomes necessary.

Re:good

[bondsbw]

This is great for cities where it is still profitable to build competitive infrastructure. Some areas (like my neighborhood) are just far enough away that we barely get one company to provide any service at all, and there's no competition to drive the prices down.

There will be a mixed bag of solutions, and regulating different areas differently is necessary.

Re:good

[Obfuscant]

Once you have more than about 3 alternatives the margins are so low that 4 and 5 won't bother unless it really becomes necessary.

History has shown that once you have one cable company the margins are so low that a second one won't bother. Why else did the federal regulation prohibiting exclusive franchises not result in a burst of competitive cable companies? It's the costs of providing service, and the fixed number of subs available. Unlike grocery stores where a new store can attract customers from all over the place, and customers can split their shopping decisions to buy some here, some there, cable companies serve a fixed area and almost nobody would buy from both if there are two.

Re:good

[Bert64]

The mess of cables you see in asian cities, is why many asian cities can offer you gigabit fibre to your home at a very cheap price.

If you have a single cable on which anyone can lease bandwidth, who's going to build and operate the single cable? If it's a for-profit company then they will have a monopoly and increase the prices however they want, or just stop leasing the raw bandwidth and try to sell you bundled services, again at high prices and tying you in to all kinds of other crap you dont want, all while providing poor lowest-common-denominator service.

You need non profit or government to provide the cable, which some cities have been *trying* to do, but which keeps getting stalled or outright blocked in court by the incumbent telcos.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

> I think I prefer the lots of cables spaghetti approach. Redundancy is a thing; it has real value.

Cable spaghetti on the same pole doesn't make useful redundancy. If a single wayward car, tree limb, or backhoe can take out multiple cables, then they weren't usefully redundant.

> If there is only one cable and alternatives can't emerge then there will always be some rent seeker with control over it...

Unless that "rent seeker" is subject to enough meaningful oversight and control that it prevents them from working against the public interest. For example: Chattanooga's EPB. EPB is an organization run by the local government that's _so_ successful and pro-consumer that the incumbent Telcos and Cablecos bought legislation that made it _illegal_ to set up an similar organizations in many-to-most other districts in the US.

Think about that for a few minutes.

We don't build uselessly redundant roads because doing so is an absurd waste of resources. We don't build uselessly redundant power transmission lines for exactly the same reason. Why would you consider building uselessly redundant data transmission lines to not be absurdly stupid? It's exactly the same waste as uselessly redundant roads or power transmission lines.

Governments (whether Federal, State, or Local) _should_ manage, maintain, and upgrade critical infrastructure. Use of that infrastructure should be open to all comers for a nominal fee. The organizations charged with these tasks _must_ be sufficiently well funded. Well-maintained and up-to-date critical infrastructure is an _essential_ public good.

Re:good

[Tailhook]

Why else did the federal regulation prohibiting exclusive franchises not result in a burst of competitive cable companies?

Well we're reading a story about this very thing aren't we? Incumbents hindering deployments; you have to take ma bell to court to achieve anything. You need Google's deep pockets to even get started. The market has shown there is demand for alternatives; ever notice all the satellite dishes? If the incumbents could prevent rocket launches they would, but they can't so you get an alternative.

The costs you believe prevent alternatives are mostly legal and bureaucratic, not the infrastructure. Low voltage wiring and optical systems have very low maintenance costs; a small crew can maintain a large area just fine. I see that were I am now; small fiber companies profitably deploying to rural and semi-rural areas. They get good at boring and trenching and where they can find a friendly township council (often populated by people that are sick of being neglected) that will give them right-of-way they move in and do it. They are appearing the in huge gaps the incumbents have neglected for two decades now, and they are not being overwhelmed by maintenance costs.

Re:good

[Obfuscant]

Well we're reading a story about this very thing aren't we?

No, not really. This legal action is about "one touch", not the ability of a new company to enter a market.

Incumbents hindering deployments;

Incumbents not wanting new competitors "adjusting" their equipment for them. If you want to compete without moving the other guys stuff for him, this isn't relevant.

you have to take ma bell to court to achieve anything.

I'm sorry, but Ma Bell isn't relevant to this, either. And Google didn't have to take anyone to court, it was AT-T that filed suit against the city.

You need Google's deep pockets to even get started.

Bingo. It costs money to enter a new market where there is a fixed customer base. That's just what I said was the reason. It's not any dejure monopoly status, because that doesn't exist anymore.

The market has shown there is demand for alternatives; ever notice all the satellite dishes?

Yep, which is a lower cost alternative for large market operators. It also shows that there isn't a monopoly for cable anymore.

The costs you believe prevent alternatives are mostly legal and bureaucratic, not the infrastructure.

Wrong.

Low voltage wiring and optical systems have very low maintenance costs;

But someone has to install them, and that is a labor intensive operation. Considering that they have to be installed on spec (i.e. before customers sign up), it is a risky expensive venture. Then consider that you will, at best, split the market so you cannot distribute the costs over a larger customer base.

And here's the crux of the AT-T case. Maintenance costs go UP when there is a competitor busy moving your hardware around for you. It's going to break when that happens, and it's going to cost you money to go out and fix it.

I see that were I am now; small fiber companies profitably deploying to rural and semi-rural areas.

Profitable because they are not competing, right? And burying a cable in a culvert next to a road is a lot less expensive than under concrete in a city.

They are appearing the in huge gaps the incumbents have neglected

Yes, in other words, they are not trying to split the customer base, they are the sole competitor, so they can spread the operating costs over more customers than if they were getting a 50% share of the market.

and they are not being overwhelmed by maintenance costs.

If only maintenance were the only cost of building a cable physical plant.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

> Incumbents not wanting new competitors "adjusting" their equipment for them. If you want to compete without moving the other guys stuff for him...

You... don't understand the "one touch make ready" thing.

This suit by Ma Bell tried to prevent Louisville from permitting Google Fiber's trained, bonded, insured, licensed, fully qualified workers from moving existing wiring around on city-owned poles only as much as was required to install new wiring to provide Google Fiber's service. This means that only _one_ company would have to touch the wiring on the pole to perform the new installation, hence the term "one touch make ready".

Google Fiber would be (and still is) on the hook for any disruption to service or damage their workers cause.

"One touch make ready" only _doesn't_ make sense if you have a _strong_ reason to believe that the workers who will be moving the wiring are improperly trained, or if the company doing the work will be unable to pay for any potential damage or service disruption.

If -on the other hand- your aim is to add months and months and months of delay _per pole_ to a competitor's deployment, getting rid of "one touch make ready" makes a _ton_ of sense.

> Maintenance costs go UP when there is a competitor busy moving your hardware around for you.

Nope. The guys who performed the work are on the hook for damages. It's _really_ that simple. You break it, you pay to have it fixed.

> And burying a cable in a culvert next to a road is a lot less expensive than under concrete in a city.

Many (most?) cities have conduit in place specifically for this sort of thing. Those that don't usually have overhead poles.

> If only maintenance were the only cost of building a cable physical plant.

Most of those cables were run twenty to fifty+ years ago. If the telcos and cablecos claim that they haven't recouped their initial investment, then they're goddamn liars.

Re:good

[Obfuscant]

This suit by Ma Bell

AT-T.

tried to prevent Louisville from permitting Google Fiber's trained, bonded, insured, licensed, fully qualified workers from moving existing wiring around on city-owned poles

AT-T's communications network. Pole ownership is irrelevant, it's stuff that belongs to AT-T.

This means that only _one_ company would have to touch the wiring on the pole to perform the new installation, hence the term "one touch make ready".

Yes, I understand that. What did I say that contradicted that? It's Google moving AT-Ts equipment without having to tell AT-T that it was even happening.

Google Fiber would be (and still is) on the hook for any disruption to service or damage their workers cause.

If Google contractors were operating withing the scope of the law that allows them to move AT-T stuff, then no, they are not "on the hook" unless they act in a negligent manner. That's the reason for the law. Once the law allows the action, it also allows a reasonable interpretation of liability.

"One touch make ready" only _doesn't_ make sense if you have a _strong_ reason to believe that the workers who will be moving the wiring are improperly trained,

No, sorry. That's your opinion. It makes a lot of sense not to allow unsupervised and uncontrolled access to your core business asset to someone who isn't directly liable for any damage they do, and who doesn't even have to tell you that they were doing anything. "Oh, we didn't think that would disrupt your business operations" is all it takes for Google to not bother notifying AT-T of the action. "What, that was your core fiber and it broke when we moved it to the other side of the pole? Woopsies. The law said we can do that, so sorry, but it's your bad equipment that broke." It's not a case of incompetence or inability to pay, it is a case of unwillingness to hand money to the competitor.

Nope. The guys who performed the work are on the hook for damages. Nope. The guys who performed the work are on the hook for damages.

1. Prove we were there.

2. Prove we did it.

3. Prove we acted outside the scope of the law.

4. Prove we were negligent.

Many (most?) cities have conduit in place specifically for this sort of thing. Those that don't usually have overhead poles.

And? The point stands. Things cost less in the country. Recouping costs is a lot easier when you aren't in competition with an incumbent who already has most, if not all, the interested customers. That's why the rural fibers are being run profitably. That's why, despite the lack of a dejure monopoly, there wasn't, and isn't, a burst of wired competition for cable incumbents.

Most of those cables were run twenty to fifty+ years ago.

The cables that are being run for new services were not run twenty years ago. They're being installed today, and that costs a lot of money. Pretending that the only costs of building a physical plant and delivery infrastructure is for maintenance after it is in place is nonsense.

If the telcos and cablecos claim that they haven't recouped their initial investment, then they're goddamn liars.

Non sequitor. Read the context, please.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

> If Google contractors were operating withing the scope of the law that allows them to move AT-T stuff...

They _are_.

> "Oh, we didn't think that would disrupt your business operations" is all it takes for Google to not bother notifying AT-T of the action.

No, that's not how it works. Read the regulation. Ignorance doesn't shield you from the "reasonableness" test.

You'll probably be surprised at what Google Fiber is required to tell and pay to ATT. OTMR is a fix for incumbent's pernicious habits of adding _months_ if not _years_ of unnecessary delay to the pole attachment projects of competitors. It's not a shield that permits new players to destroy existing wiring.

Once you _read_ the OTMR regulations, you'll understand how your arguments here lack foundation:

http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Kentucky/loukymetro/titlexibusinessregulations/chapter116communicationandcabletelevisio?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:louisville_ky$anc=JD_116.72

Read all of 116.72, but pay _particular_ attention to section (D)(2).

Let me know what part of that regulation permits Google Fiber to come in unannounced, fuck up a competitor's lines, and get away with not paying for the damage. Take special notice at how the guy attaching the new wires _has to pay for the post-work inspection performed by the guy whose equipment was moved_. Reaally burdensome, this regulation is!

I eagerly await your rebuttal, but I expect that you won't have anything useful to say. :(

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

In the end "consumers" pay for all the utilities, thru user fees.
A better deal, for the Citizens, would be for them to invest in the fiber networks, and let guys like AT&T and Google in to provide "content", sorry not AT&T, they are in the "wire" business. AT&T is a brake on progress, as it has always been, due to its monopoly mentality and actions.
Municipalities have in places invested in fiber deployment, which is the right way. City halls needs competent people to effect this.
Fiber could replace ALL radio frequency broadcasts from tower to buildings.
Freed up spectrum could be better used for portable devices.

Re: good

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't say "ma bell", "bell system", "long lines", or whatever. So chances of this butt hurt deathstar bitch replying are non existent.

Re: good

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that the facts thoroughly explode his arguments are why I expect not to hear from him.

Re:good

[dave420]

Have one company provide the infrastructure. This company can be owned by the city it serves. It is forced to lease out access to its infrastructure to any company which requests it. That might be a large ISP, or any number of small ISPs. This is how this problem is tackled in many parts of the world, and it works. You get small ISPs, large ISPs, and everyone in between playing on a level playing field.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because government is so efficient in administering things. Who wouldn't want our communication system to run as well as the VA or your typical local DOT office.

Re:good

[Anonymous Coward]

> or your typical local DOT office.

I think the cached pattern you were reaching for was "or your typical DMV office".

Government agencies are not inherently inefficient or incompetent. Just like privately-owned organizations, they are only as good as their stated mission, the staff that man them, the level of funding that keeps them going, and the oversight that keeps them on track. Ask retirees how well Medicare and Medicaid works for them. Ask the people who read the Federal Register how pleased they are with the quality of that service :)

And:

You can't get worse than an organization that _requires_ every single competitor to _string up their own lines and transmission equipment_ and regularly imposes pointless multi-month or multi-year delays in order to strangle competitors in their cribs. The only way you can be more wasteful and inefficient is to accept bribes and then fail to do what you were bribed to do. (Oh hey. That sounds pretty much like what Big Telco did in the 1990's!)

CUT AT&T IN HALF! Oh wait we did that.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no actual FCC, it's a pay to play whore party. Thanks Tronald!

We All Know How that would go ...

[Anonymous Coward]

We've seen comments and posts on here that AT&T would delay for months at a time just to verify the permits, accept payment for said work, then wait another 6 months to deploy a crew... This is why we cant have nice things.

But.....

[modmans2ndcoming]

Google is getting out of the Fiber business.

Re:But.....

[Darinbob]

That just leaves Kellogg as the major player in the fiber industry.

Re: But.....

[bestweasel]

Wall Street Merger Mania Is Driving Us Toward One Single, Horrible ISP - Probably Named Comcast

Re:But.....

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The problem is that Kellogg's anti-masturbation agenda will probably involve porn blocking on fiber Internet.

Good for Google!

[EzInKy]

While AT&T focused on building out fiber in profitable areas, Google started with the poorest most neediest and less served areas. Take care of people and people will take care of you.

Re: Good for Google!

[Anonymous Coward]

Louisville is not what I'd call poor. It has a good logistics economy.

Re: Good for Google!

[EzInKy]

Really? Our murder rate has nearly doubled of the last couple of years. It seems that only drugs and death are seen as the only way to the middle class in these woods.

Re:Good for Google!

[Anonymous Coward]

While AT&T focused on building out fiber in profitable areas, Google started with the poorest most neediest and less served areas. Take care of people and people will take care of you.

Um, OK. Except that Google quit building fiber because it was costing them too much money.

Re:Good for Google!

[EzInKy]

Citation needed here. I mean I've turned down ecery offer from AT&T and Spectrum waiting on Google. The former two can't see anything but profits and have no interest in bettering the community.

Re:Good for Google!

[Anonymous Coward]

While AT&T focused on building out fiber in profitable areas, Google started with the poorest most neediest and less served areas. Take care of people and people will take care of you.

Link? Evidence? Nice out-of-band quote but without facts.. this is just unsubstantiated Spam on slash.

"Google started with the poorest most neediest and less served areas".
Really.. wow I'm dumbfounded as you rally for the disenfranchised without evidence that a capitalistic company has taken up your flag.... and ran with it. Take care of people and people will take care of you is pretty nice and a hopeful initiative but it doesn't pay the bills.

Seriously... please.. provide evidence where a capitalistic company decided to start their efforts on Internet access... with regions that either could not pay for it.. or might need subsidies to pay for it.

Sad... just sad =P

Re:Good for Google!

[EzInKy]

Okay.

https://www.bizjournals.com/lo...

Google Fiber is starting construction of its gigabit internet network next week in West Louisville.

The lucky winner of the starting point is the Portland neighborhood — a seeming homage to Google Fiber's promise to the city to be socially conscious internet providers.

Grace Simrall, chief of Civic Innovation and Technology at Louisville Metro Government, confirmed Wednesday the technology giant's intention to start building. She said the quick turnaround from the original "Google Fiber is coming" announcement in late April to the start of the build is encouraging.

"They're assured us that they've come up with a strategy to be able to turn peoples' services on faster than other markets," she said. "They're aiming to do this in a matter of months, not years."

Simrall said the next neighborhood the gigabit service will come to is Newburg. Other neighborhoods are in the works, but she could not confirm plans past Newburg.

When the first announcement came, Google said it planned to test innovative ways to deploy the infrastructure, including through wireless technologies, microtrenching, and possibly through simply hanging the cables on utility poles.

The last method is under fire in Louisville. Don't forget that AT&T and the Louisville Metro Government are duking it out in court over a 2016 city ordinance that was crafted to help Google and other third-party internet service providers deploy networks quicker.

Maybe to totally avoid the issue, the deployment in Portland will be done by microtrenching, which is literally burying the fiber optic cable underground. The cable will be laid block by block, with the goal to finish one block each day, Simrall said. It will reach from 22nd and 30th streets between Market and Bank streets.

She said she couldn't say the company's goals, but Simrall and other government officials have talked with the Google Fiber team about bringing better, more affordable internet connection to the underserved, lower-income neighborhoods in West Louisville.

Simrall has said she thinks this will help to start closing the opportunity gap in the city, because access to good quality, high-speed internet service is a major economic driver.

GF already stalled

[Anonymous Coward]

Google fiber is already stalled in sections of Kanas City. Didn't take TT&T to do that.

Doesn't matter

[HeckRuler]

Just the act of putting it through the courts delayed Google and cost them enough money that the whole thing is unprofitable. They don't expand or their expansion is slower and AT&T doesn't face competition. With no competition, and essentially the only game in a lot of towns, they can milk those locations for the money it costs to put all of this through the courts.

Every city will be a legal battle to route the entrenched and established monopoly.

Yay late-stage capitalism. If someone like GOOGLE just isn't quite big enough to enter the market, then there is no free market and capitalism cannot function. It should be a public utility or the monopolies need to be broken up.

Re:Doesn't matter

[mishehu]

Problem is one of history already. Ma Bell always sucked, but at least once upon a time they were truly regulated as a utility, and they also had Bell Labs which had some redeeming value to it. Then the 1980's and 90's come around, and we smash Ma Bell up into the RBOC's. Except now all the RBOC's have been slowly reforming like the T1000 in slow motion to return to being Ma Bell, except now with very little regulation. Just look at that stooge and his stupid oversized coffee cup at the head of the FCC for all your answers to the questions of "what do the next few years have in store for us in the realm of telecommunications and internet access?"

Re:Doesn't matter

[Obfuscant]

It should be a public utility or the monopolies need to be broken up.

How do you "break up" a cable monopoly given that they are defacto and not dejure to start with? Do you force other companies to come provide service, or do you force the local cable company to break up into two or more companies all serving the same area? This ignores the reason for the defacto monopoly in the first place: the economics of multiple providers for a fixed number of customers.

Even when the Ma Bell monopoly was broken up, it didn't create competition in local service, it only created the regional Bells and opened up long distance.

I think AT-T's objection to this law is quite reasonable. There have been tales of one provider sabotaging the other's equipment posted here. Why do you think things will get better when the law says that one company can move the other company's stuff around at will? While I bet that nobody here cares that someone is moving AT-T's stuff, this could bite Google in the ass, too. AT-T will have the same right to move Google's hardware that Google has to move AT-T's. Yes, requiring the owner to do the moving is slower, but who is hurt when the courts get involved in determining fault for a major system outage created when one company breaks the other's stuff? The customers who wind up with no service, that's who. The question of fault is much clearer when the law says that AT-T cannot touch Google's cable plant. Imagine the battle when AT-T moves something of Google's, Google service goes down, and Google doesn't have to prove just that AT-T moved it, but that AT-T was negligent when it did so.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you "break up" a cable monopoly

yeah that's easy, split NBC away from Comcast

split Verizon wireless away from Verizon FIOS

Re:Doesn't matter

[Obfuscant]

yeah that's easy, split NBC away from Comcast

That doesn't create local competition. You still only have Comcast serving that area. You're left with either forcing someone else to come into the area to provide service (you can't), or breaking up the one local company into multiples (which has serious problems).

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

I think AT-T's objection to this law is quite reasonable. There have been tales of one provider sabotaging the other's equipment posted here. Why do you think things will get better when the law says that one company can move the other company's stuff around at will? While I bet that nobody here cares that someone is moving AT-T's stuff, this could bite Google in the ass, too. AT-T will have the same right to move Google's hardware that Google has to move AT-T's. Yes, requiring the owner to do the moving is slower, but who is hurt when the courts get involved in determining fault for a major system outage created when one company breaks the other's stuff? The customers who wind up with no service, that's who. The question of fault is much clearer when the law says that AT-T cannot touch Google's cable plant. Imagine the battle when AT-T moves something of Google's, Google service goes down, and Google doesn't have to prove just that AT-T moved it, but that AT-T was negligent when it did so.

In most areas, this is a non-issue because neither AT&T, or Google, or Comcast, actually do any of the work themselves. They use local (regional) contractors. Typically they use the SAME contractors. The contractor that AT&T would send out to move the equipment is the same contractor that Google will send out to move the equipment.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

hat doesn't create local competition.

you're moving the goalposts, question as asked:

How do you "break up" a cable monopoly

NBC content on Comcast wires is the "monopoly" that we ALL need to fight

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you "break up" a cable monopoly given that they are defacto and not dejure to start with?

At gunpoint.

Do you force other companies to come provide service, or do you force the local cable company to break up into two or more companies all serving the same area?

Or?

This ignores the reason for the defacto monopoly in the first place: the economics of multiple providers for a fixed number of customers.

This assumes the reason.

Even when the Ma Bell monopoly was broken up, it didn't create competition in local service, it only created the regional Bells and opened up long distance.

They didn't try. They kept local service as a PUC anyway. That's ~40 years ago now, so if you want, learn some lessons.

I think AT-T's objection to this law is quite reasonable.

Of course you do.

There have been tales of one provider sabotaging the other's equipment posted here.

There have been tales of that being AT&T, not to mention numerous backhoes in the wrong place, trucks in the wrong place, and even a gas line blowing up. So....what?

Why do you think things will get better when the law says that one company can move the other company's stuff around at will?

Why do you think things are acceptable now?

While I bet that nobody here cares that someone is moving AT-T's stuff, this could bite Google in the ass, too. AT-T will have the same right to move Google's hardware that Google has to move AT-T's.

Exactly.

Yes, requiring the owner to do the moving is slower, but who is hurt when the courts get involved in determining fault for a major system outage created when one company breaks the other's stuff? The customers who wind up with no service, that's who.

We are already hurt by that, so you're forcing one injury upon us, for what now?

The question of fault is much clearer when the law says that AT-T cannot touch Google's cable plant.

No, it isn't.

Imagine the battle when AT-T moves something of Google's, Google service goes down, and Google doesn't have to prove just that AT-T moved it, but that AT-T was negligent when it did so.

Exactly what they have to prove now. You can't just execute the head of AT&T because some contractor made a mistake, and you know what?

The guy who mentioned it was often the SAME people was probably right.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Bert64]

Nationalise the infrastructure, rent it at cost to any provider who wants to offer services to end users.

Re:Doesn't matter

[mishehu]

During the 1990s before the RBOC's gamed the system by running fiber-to-the-node, they were required by law to give equal access to CLEC's to straight copper runs. At different points in time I had Sprint's ION service as well as various DSL's from Speakeasy/Covad. The law was intended to push the RBOC's to hasten FTTP roll-outs, but the loophole cost us, the citizens, all that competition that had actually sprouted up. At one time I even lived directly behind the CO for my area, and they could have run ethernet from their building to my apartment, but instead ran it as fiber around the block to a terminal, and then copper from there. I had to fight with AT&T (then SBC, after they bought up Ameritech which used to be IL Bell) to get a straight copper run so I could still use Speakeasy instead of AT&T's crappy adsl service. And now where I live we're on a fiber run of several km to the node in the neighborhood, so I can only get service via AT&T. And yet AT&T won't provide me even their old crappy adsl service here because... well they'll never give me the actual reason - others have service here and the linemen have confirmed to me that there's ports in the terminal that could be used.

Re:Doesn't matter

[HeckRuler]

How do you "break up" a cable monopoly given that they are defacto and not dejure to start with?

I don't think that really makes a difference. You get the territory map that they've carved the USA into, and instead of 4-5 companies controlling the bulk of the business, you split them into 40-50 companies. A CEO in Cleaveland won't give money to a CEO in NY to afford the court dog and pony show. And when fiber comes to town, they won't be able to undercut Google while affording those subsidies by jacking up the price elsewhere. If they instead try to take away business from each other, the free market exists and capitalism works great. It's business. Size is power. The telecoms are abusing their power so it's time to cut them down. Or take them over, I think I'd prefer them as a utility.

There's a whole hell of a lot of details and intricacies to managing the Internet I'm positive I'm completely ignorant of. I'm really just spouting rhetoric here about whipping out Sherman's hammer. But when a market gets abused by anti-competitive practices and no one can enter the market due to the artificially inflated barrier to entry, then it's time to nationalize, regulate, or bring out the mother fucking hammer. It's the proper response.

Why do you think things will get better when the law says that one company can move the other company's stuff around at will?

I don't. It doesn't matter. They'll find some other way to stall the competition's entry into their market. Yeah, physically cutting the competition's cables sounds right up their alley.

Re: Doesn't matter

[bestweasel]

But that's commun... no, that's not the word, wait, sensible, that's it.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Attila Dimedici]

People keep making this argument, but there is no evidence that there are natural monopolies. The only monopoly that I know of that can be claimed to have come into existence without government intervention is Standard Oil. I doubt that the monopoly could have survived much longer than it did even without the government actively breaking it up. I, also, suspect that some of the business practices it used to become a monopoly were violations of laws other than the Sherman Act.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Zxern]

Nah it's easy to split. NBC, Comcast internet, and Wired infrastructure company. One is a content provider, one offers services to residents, the other leases the infrastructure to service providers.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Obfuscant]

In most areas, this is a non-issue because neither AT&T, or Google, or Comcast, actually do any of the work themselves. They use local (regional) contractors.

The important part of that equation is that the contractors are hired BY THE COMPANY THAT OWNS THE EQUIPMENT. They're working on that company's behalf. The owner is ultimately liable for any damage because the work is being done on their equipment at their request.

Why should I be able to, or be able to hire someone to, move your equipment around? While it should be accepted as fact that you accept full liability if something of mine breaks when you move it, you can bet that any damage will be subject to legal tests for negligence once the law says that anyone can move anyone elses equipment. That's a much higher bar to legal recompense than a simple "you weren't authorized to touch it, you broke it, you pay".

Re:Doesn't matter

[Obfuscant]

I don't think that really makes a difference. You get the territory map that they've carved the USA into, and instead of 4-5 companies controlling the bulk of the business, you split them into 40-50 companies.

How does that create LOCAL COMPETITION? That was the initial goal for "breaking up the monopoly". Instead of 4 or 5 big cable companies you have 40 or 50, all still serving the local communities individually. You don't create any competition that way.

That's why excuse of opposing cable company mergers on the grounds that it reduces competition is silly. When Comcast and Time Warner merge, every Comcast customer had the same choices for cable service as before the merger, and ditto TW.

Why do you think things will get better when the law says that one company can move the other company's stuff around at will?

I don't. It doesn't matter.

I agree.

They'll find some other way to stall the competition's entry into their market.

If the municipality is taking shortcuts to ease the way for the competition, you betcha there will be legal challenges. But the law specifies what has to be done to issue a second franchise.

Yeah, physically cutting the competition's cables sounds right up their alley.

That applies to every competitor. And making it legal for one competitor to "manage" the equipment for another company only makes the matter worse, because the hurdles for legal proof get higher. "You touched it you're liable" is no longer the criterion, it's "you touched it and were negligent so you are liable". Is that proof of negligence that will cost a lot of money and make lawyers rich.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, the RBOC's are awful, but c'mon, do you even remember 1990? For perhaps 20% more (after inflation) than my parents paid back then for a landline, without caller ID, and with metered charges for any call to a location more than ten miles away: I have phone calls, text messaging, and practically unlimited Internet access anywhere in the country.

Re:Doesn't matter

[rtb61]

The corruption of lobbyists you mean, buying up politicians in order to allow monopolies to establish themselves and provide shit service at exorbitant rates, more profit, More Profit, MORE PROFIT. So the psychopaths scream at the lobbyists they pay to buy politicians. They were broken up and simply bought up main stream media, to hide buying up politicians in order to bring the corporate monopolies back in order to pillage the peasants. The internet is exposing it all, which is why they are desperate to turn the internet into one giant monopoly.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you "break up" a cable monopoly given that they are defacto and not dejure to start with? Do you force other companies to come provide service, or do you force the local cable company to break up into two or more companies all serving the same area? This ignores the reason for the defacto monopoly in the first place: the economics of multiple providers for a fixed number of customers.

Fairly trivially. You take away their government-granted monopoly on cable-laying, or you separate the company into the installation division (which is hired by any provider to run and maintain cable) and the services division (which sells internet access).

Re:Doesn't matter

[HeckRuler]

How does that create LOCAL COMPETITION?

"And when fiber comes to town, they won't be able to undercut Google while affording those subsidies by jacking up the price elsewhere."

It reduces the barrier to entry and lets LOCAL COMPETITION come to town without anti-competitive practices being leveraged against them because they won't be powerful enough individually.

Are you ignoring the article? LOCAL COMPETITION is being dragged through the courts and fought at every turn in an effort to stall. The Telecoms are working to block LOCAL COMPETITION from existing. This was, arguably, a minor win in that regard, but it doesn't matter.

If the municipality is taking shortcuts to ease the way for the competition, you betcha there will be legal challenges

Why? I mean I get that the entrenched corporations squeezing the city for cash don't want competition and will squawk all day long about government colluding against them with their enemy, but it's no different then subsidies for electric cars. "This sucks, we want alternatives". You talk like that's a bad thing. And hey, I don't think cities should bend over super-backwards to try and get fiber into town. This bullshit where cities have to bribe factories to come there is fucking bullshit of the highest degree. But "easing the way" and encouraging free-market competition? That's a good thing.

[Yeah, physically cutting the competition's cables sounds right up their alley.] applies to every competitor.

No it doesn't. My statement is a comment on the general corporate culture surrounding the telecoms. Does Google have that sort of underhanded backstabbing customer-be-damned fuck-you-we're-a-monopoly sort of culture? ...only a little.

"You touched it you're liable" is no longer the criterion, it's "you touched it and were negligent so you are liable".

Did it break? Were you the last one to touch it? Did it not have any other reason to break? You were negligent. This really doesn't change much.

Why on earth are you sucking AT&T's cock so hard?

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you order a landline for voice service? They are required by law to connect you. Once you have the copper, you can order the DSL.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at that stooge and his stupid oversized coffee cup at the head of the FCC for all your answers to the questions of "what do the next few years have in store for us in the realm of telecommunications and internet access?"

Answer: If you thought the coffee cup was over-sized, wait until you see what gets used to shaft you.....

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Except a land line now runs on their fiber service and they will provide you with an analog box to plug into the router that you can then plug the rj-45 from your home into. I gave up and went to Comcast. As much as I hate Comcast, they are now the lesser of two evils.

Nathan

Re:Doesn't matter

[tlhIngan]

People keep making this argument, but there is no evidence that there are natural monopolies. The only monopoly that I know of that can be claimed to have come into existence without government intervention is Standard Oil. I doubt that the monopoly could have survived much longer than it did even without the government actively breaking it up. I, also, suspect that some of the business practices it used to become a monopoly were violations of laws other than the Sherman Act.

A "natural monopoly" is a monopoly by some facet of geography. Infrastructure is a natural monopoly because allowing competition makes a mess of things - imagine what it would look like if all the poles had to have 10 power lines from 10 power companies to supply you power, 10 coax lines from 10 cable companies to supply you with tv/phone/internet and 10 phone lines for tv/phone/internet. And never mind the 10 sewer lines for companies to take your sewage, and water pipes to supply you with water. Ditto natural gas and other facilities all needed to support all this redundant infrastructure.

It is unwieldy. So instead, they have one sewage pipe, one water pipe, one gas pipe, one coax, one power cable and one TV line to your house. The company that maintains this infrastructure is a natural monopoly and should be heavily regulated (in fact, most of the time it's city owned and operated). The people on the other end - who supply you with the gas/water/power/etc can go pay a set fee to use the infrastructure to provide you with service.

So if you're going to break up Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, you use it that way - one division will maintain the infrastructure as a completely separate entity, heavily regulated. The other divisions that provide the service and content can do whatever the hell they want to do to attract your dollars.

Re:Doesn't matter

[mishehu]

I have a POTS line from them, and I'm approximately 5000-6000 feet to the terminal, which is well within the line attenuation for 6mbps. They simply won't provide the service no matter how many hours I spend on the phone getting bounced from dept. to dept. to dept. It's rather kafka'esque in fact. And I work in telecom and was in line communications for the military, so at the bare minimum I'd like an answer as to why they won't provide me with the DSL service. They won't even confirm the availability of a port in the terminal. They won't say anything beyond "the computer says 'not available'". Good luck getting a hold of somebody who is local, btw.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Attila Dimedici]

The definition I heard for "natural monopoly" was one where a free market would result in a monopoly without government intervention. Your definition appears to be that a "natural monopoly: is one where a monopoly is in the best interest (although I am not sure who's best interest). Since I do not agree that a monopoly is ever the best option, I do not believe that natural monopolies exist by your definition either.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Add to that the whole 'government is bad' BS from the so-called right and it's pretty much impossible.

Re:Doesn't matter

[HeckRuler]

The definition I heard for "natural monopoly" was one where a free market would result in a monopoly without government intervention.

Well you see, sometimes people say stupid stuff and that mis-informs others. The definition you've heard was wrong.

ANY AND ALL markets will form a monopoly without government intervention. See: Robber Barons. And/or late-stage capitalism, or the eventual end-state of anarchy, which is just brutal totalitarian thugs/kings which kill anyone that doesn't do as they say. Capitalism is a competition. Left alone, eventually someone wins and the market consolidates. Just as the transition from anarchy->authoritarian->democracy is kind of a natural progression, there's a similar progression of frontier free market -> consolidation into a monopoly (or a handful of oligarchs if you've tried to outlaw straight-up monopolies) -> An industry that's so heavily regulated it might as well be government.

[his] definition appears to be that a "natural monopoly: is one where a monopoly is in the best interest (although I am not sure who's best interest)

How many water pipes do you have going into your house? just the one? If someone owned that and had full libertarian-style control over that pipe at the transition between your land and not-your-land, that would be a monopoly. Do you want multiple water-pipes? Sewer lines, electrical lines, junction boxes, ROADS. Do you want multiple competing roadway systems? Like you drive forwards out of your house to get on CorpA roads and drive out the back of your house to get on competitor's CorpB roads that don't play well with each other and have bridges and underpasses everywhere? No. No you want a single set of roads that interconnect. with standards rules. Having one set of these things is in your best interest. That's what's natural. So of course it's regulated by the government and no company can own that monopoly and abuse it for profit.

But imagine that AT&T owned the literal road up to your driveway. They'd have a natural monopoly. And they're talking about only allowing certain colored cars on the road. Sounds terrible doesn't it? We're suggesting that utilities like water, power, and communications should be treated in a similar fashion.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Attila Dimedici]

You are correct that there is only one water pipe into my house. I own it.
I am glad that you brought up AT&T. The original AT&T acquired their monopoly because the government wanted there to be a single telephone company. At the time the government intervened, natural market forces were causing telephone companies to standardize on one interface which they all agreed upon. But the government did not like that there were hundreds of telephone companies (too hard to control). So, they passed a rule, which appeared to be in everybody's interest, but actually served to force almost all phone companies to sell out to AT&T. It was set up to leave a few local companies in areas which were only modestly profitable so as to appear as if AT&T becoming a monopoly was just the result of market forces.

Re:Doesn't matter

[HeckRuler]

You are correct that there is only one water pipe into my house. I own it.

Mystery of mysteries! Let me open your eyes to the wide and wonderful world of pipe technology:

The pipe doesn't actually terminate at the wall. It keeps going. The stuff that comes in through the pipe doesn't magically genesis at your property.

YOU DON'T OWN IT PAST YOUR HOUSE

Or property. I don't actually know. I imagine it's a city-to-city thing.

Anyway, there's a pipe that goes into your house. You own it.... up to a point. You DON'T own it past that point. You have no claim to pipe that travels from the water treatment plant to your neighborhood. You really really really don't want there to have to be multiple competing systems of pipes feeding into your house.

The original AT&T acquired their monopoly because the government wanted there to be a single telephone company

. . . 1885? During the string of Do-Nothing-Presidents? In the age of the Robber Barons? The government was practically a contractor of a few wealthy industrialists.

If you're shocked that the rules at said time favored big business, then you've got a very insightful history lesson ahead of you.

And... what's the point here? "RassimFrassim ebil Gobmint ruins ever`thang!" ? Really? Yeah, sure, whatever. They've certainly fucked up shit in the past just as they've certainly did some good in the past. I'm a fan of Sherman's Hammer, you might not be. But regardless of all that coming together and discussing the merits of proposed changes to the system we've got depends on people agreeing on terminology. Natural monopolies exist despite your efforts to redefine them and claim they don't.

Because you most certainly don't own the pipe that goes into your house. (Not the one coming out of the wall, the one going INTO the wall, from the outside. Holy shit the point I have to start being this pedantic is the point I'm fighting willful ignorance. Good luck out there)

Kansas is not poor either!

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Fiber started in Kansas and discovered that the affluent tended to sign up while the poorer areas did not even sign up for the free tier. Google's doing a great job of taking care of the wealthy.

That said, I would very much welcome Fiber to my area. It's a shame that Google recently announced back in October that they are scaling back new Fiber deployments.

Do you live under a rock?

[stabiesoft]

It was widely reported late last year that google was dialing down wired for wireless. The CEO of the fiber division resigned and they let go of 100 employees. In austin, if you don't have it now, you are not going to get it. I told a friend when they first announced it a long time ago now, that we would never get it. They would have to trench to provide us service, and it is too expensive to trench, particularly in our limestone solid rock area. It took my fence guys over a day to jack hammer the holes for my fence. Google went for poles and got accommodations from most cities to get easy access to the poles. I'm not saying it is right for AT&T to do what they are doing, but Google only went where it was easy.

Shady business as usual

[pak9rabid]

Make no mistake, this is simply AT&T trying to stall the deployment of Google Fiber. They tried to do the same shit here in Austin, not to mention other shady shit (like trying to persuade all of the local AT&T employees to write a letter to city council stating why it's unfair for the City to force them to allow Google on their poles).