AT&T, Comcast Lawsuit Has Nullified a City's Broadband Competition Law (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: AT&T and Comcast have convinced a federal judge to nullify an ordinance that was designed to bring more broadband competition to Nashville, Tennessee. The Nashville Metro Council last year passed a "One Touch Make Ready" rule that gives Google Fiber or other new ISPs faster access to utility poles. The ordinance lets a single company make all of the necessary wire adjustments on utility poles itself, instead of having to wait for incumbent providers like AT&T and Comcast to send work crews to move their own wires. AT&T and Comcast sued the metro government in U.S. District Court in Nashville, claiming that federal and local laws preempt the One Touch Make Ready rule. Judge Victoria Roberts agreed with AT&T and Comcast in a ruling issued Tuesday. Google Fiber is offering service in Nashville despite saying last year that it was waiting for access to thousands of utility poles. "We're reviewing [the] court ruling to understand its potential impact on our build in Nashville," a Google spokesperson said this week, according to The Tennessean. "We have made significant progress with new innovative deployment techniques in some areas of the city, but access to poles remains an important issue where underground deployment is not a possibility."

Comments

Nah

[ArchieBunker]

More like she retires and gets a nice job on the board.

Uh huh...

[Desler]

But Ajit Pai’s FCC says only 1 ISP choice is sufficient competition so clearly this ordinance was totally unnecessary. /s

Re:Uh huh...

[mishehu]

With all this talk of Net Neutrality around here, it's no wonder we're all so Ajitated.

Re:Uh huh...

[_Sharp'r_]

So to you, the fact that Ajit Pai has publicly come out in a WSJ editorial wanting to switch the Obama era FCC rules from what this judge just upheld (Title II FCC micromanagement) back to "light touch regulations" similar to what this judge rejected (but on a national level, not just for one locality) is proof to you that his position is the exact opposite? Let me guess, you've never actually read anything Pai's said or written about ISP competition?

Re:Uh huh...

[Desler]

I’ve read plenty of what he’s written and said. It’s mostly vomitous. But, hey, keep thinking that massive media conglomeration and ISP consolidation is going to benefit you. I’m sure it’ll happen around the time that massive tax cut to the .1% “trickles down” a few pennies your way.

Fascism

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a perfect example of fascism. Corporations acquiring the real power over the people by either colluding with politicians in power, or by brute force of their money, through lobying, corruption, using the legal system as a weapon, etc.

This is exactly the reason democracy was created: To take power away from the wealthy elite and give it to the people as a whole. Of course, this goes completely against human nature, so democracy is, and always will be, a constant uphill battle.

Re:Fascism

[FrankHaynes]

More likely: AT&T or Comcast will repair their own junk, then send the repair bill to Google. If Google refuses or is slow to pay I'm sure their fiber might suffer some "accidental" damage at key utility poles.

But since they all would have been in it together, sharing the same utility poles, it's in everybody's best interest not to mess up their competitor's stuff and just work on their own. Comcast shares poles around here with old AT&T copper telephone lines and that's the way they treat them.

Never ascribe to malice that which can readily be attributed to stupidity. They'll break more stuff by mistake than any other cause.

Re:Fascism

[mikeiver1]

"It's actually a perfect example of common sense." I think you are confusing the term "common sense" with the term "stupidity" The incumbent broad band providers are dragging their feet every inch of the way to prevent any competition. Be it at the pole or in the court room, every day they delay is another day that they can continue to flees the customers. We continues to be at the mercy of these Cretans and be forced to used them due to the monopoly they have over us. They simply use their power and money to buy the politicians to enforce their will on the people. I have said it so many times and I will say it again. The last mile should belong to the local counties and be a non for profit corporation. All providers should have to play out of the same CO's and all traffic should be over fiber to the home. Changes in provider would be a quick as changing dirty under ware. A simple change in a routing table!

Re:Fascism

[Bruinwar]

I worked cable TV for one summer when I was a kid. We never did any damage to the other cables. Looking back at the work, which was stringing cables on poles, it would be quite difficult & rare to accidentally damage phone or power cables.

Re: Fascism

[K. S. Kyosuke]

We continues to be at the mercy of these Cretans

I thought it was about Poles?

Re: Fascism

[hackwrench]

They test them the same way the other company would. That's why we have standards.

Re:In Related News...

[Evangelical_Molester]

You have strange ideas of how representative our Congress actually is, how much power individuals have vs huge corporations and how legal decisions are arrived at in our country. I'm going to be nice and leave it there.

The REAL issue instead of NN

[Karmashock]

Everyone is clapping along like harbor seals to the Net Neutrality narrative. However, is it the lack of competition that is the actual issue.

https://www.wired.com/2013/07/...

Its not NN that is important. That actually solidifies the monopolies. Ensure right of access to poles for other companies besides the big guys. And NN will be irrelevant.

Re:The REAL issue instead of NN

[slack_justyb]

Ensure right of access to poles for other companies besides the big guys

Local governments set that. Any attempt at what you are purposing is literally the Federal government dictating what goes on what pole at the city level. I'm not sure anyone here could find something that would bring the "Don't tread on me" zealots out faster. No complaint on your proposal, but seriously that would incite a firestorm way larger than the whole "government death panels". Just saying, the uneducated are still a pretty powerful voting block and Comcast/AT&T do pretty much own the main ways those folks tend to get their FoxNe.., er, news.

lack of competition that is the actual issue

You are going to first inform folks why that's important to them, addressing the issue with terms like "competition" only works if folks know to shop around, or that shopping around is actually an option. Think about hospitals. People don't stop to think for a second that, "Oh hey, I can actually shop around for hospitals." ISPs are pretty much same game here, no one really understands why having multiple carriers in an area is a good thing, they just see "INTERNET". NN addresses the problem at the folks who "make" Internet. Now NN isn't a really good fit, but NN versus nothing, I'll take the first one.

Its not NN that is important

You're right, if folks were well informed and understood basic economics then this would be a no fuss issue. HOWEVER, we don't live in that world and addressing that problem is more than likely a multi decade thing and I'll be good and dead by that point, same for you more than likely. I get what you are saying, "trust the consumer..." Problem is that average rate consumer is an idiot and ISPs are really, really, really good at understanding and playing that to their advantage. So all things considered, I'll take the less impossible option to be implemented.

Re:The REAL issue instead of NN

[Karmashock]

Not talking about the actual problem is not helpful.

The more people talk about NN, the less they understand about the problem. In fact, I WANT the monopolies to abuse their power because only that will probably wake people up to the real issue here.

You say "but the locals"... shine a flash light on it. Because if local competition were allowed, the whole issue would be moot.

As to shopping around, you can't blame people for not shopping around when they have no choices.

As to people are not well informed so we need to allow monopolies to drive up costs, retard investment in infrustructure, and then blame everything on federal regs that don't matter...

I disagree. talk about what is actually the problem instead of being a tool for big ISPs that WANT this solution because it means no one can compete with them for the low low price of doing what they're already doing.

NN is totally irrelevant. With or without it the internet will work exactly the same. They're not going to bill you extra for accessing certain websites... it would cause a riot. Verizon might be that dumb as they are proven to be very stupid when it comes to these sorts of things. But all the other ISPs are not that stupid.

All it does is give the Feds more leverage to regulate something that we all want to be free whilst at the same time ensuring our service will continue to suck by making competition less likely.

Its the option of Tools. Let us not be Tools. Let us not do this course of action... it is Toolish.

Re:The REAL issue instead of NN

[Karmashock]

and the fewer companies are there the easier collusion is... and really... its all about the government locking out competition to make it possible.

That's all it is... Open it up and the corruption doesn't do anything. It will only make corrupt companies bad service providers which will make them lose market share as customers vote with their wallets.

But don't give them choices and people can't fix it.

It has nothing to do with NN. Its all about the competition the government shuts down.

And again... its mostly at the local and state level. But it is pervasive and national.

Re:The REAL issue instead of NN

[Karmashock]

A republic requires an informed electorate. This discussion we are having right now is fundamental to having any kind of agency in our society.

If the notion is that people are just too stupid to process anything then prepare to be ruled.

Let us try to avoid that and simply address the actual issue. Playing into the hands of powerful interests that want to monopolize the internet is not helpful. And NN won't stop that. It enshrines it. The notion from the NN people is that the government will save them despite the fact that the current problem was CAUSED by government corruption. Its mostly state and local corruption but it is corruption nonetheless.

Re:The REAL issue instead of NN

[dave420]

Just do what countries with decent internet service do: separate the infrastructure from the provider. If access to the infrastructure is guaranteed to any ISP, you get a shit tonne of ISPs and infrastructure removed from the business pressures of being an ISP/media conglomerate. Like how different courier services don't need their own roads.

Re:The REAL issue instead of NN

[Karmashock]

I'm fine with that so long as "infrastructure" = poles and conduits. I am not okay with it if that means "wires, routers, etc".

I trust the government or your socialized monopoly to be able to provide poles and conduits. I want Right of Way for small companies to lay cable. Naturally have REASONABLE licenses to ensure things are done in an orderly manner that respects shared space on the poles and in the conduits.

However, if someone wants to run cable along poles and through conduits where there is room... then with a uniform fee that every agency that runs that much cable through that much space pays... allow them to run their cable.

What I want is competition. I do not want monopolies created by the government simply because it is the most effective way to obtain graft and bribes. This is not in the public's interest. The monopolies only serve the interests of large lazy corporations and corrupt politicians.

I want competition in last mile service. And saying "it can't happen because cost/logistics" is an interesting argument when companies are being legally forbidden to do it. If it were so problematic via cost and logistics then the corrupt political deals that have been struck wouldn't need to forbid the practice by other means. Market forces all by themselves would stop it.

But market forces are not stopping it. Try to run cable in name the city... you will get your permits denied... and if you ignore that... you'll get arrested. That is what is stopping it. And that is what needs to stop.

https://www.wired.com/2013/07/...

Re:The REAL issue instead of NN

[slack_justyb]

You say "but the locals"... shine a flash light on it.

You yourself are an incredible example of why that doesn't work. Literally, your reply is the exact reason why things like this don't work. If you cannot figure that out that's on you.

talk about what is actually the problem instead of being a tool for big ISPs

Your mom. That's basically what that whole waste of words gets.

big ISPs that WANT this solution because it means no one can compete with them for the low low price of doing what they're already doing

Your statement makes zero sense. The low price exists because they needn't share space with anyone. Start filling the poles or underground pipes holding the fiber with five or six different ISPs and suddenly you have a limited resource that drives prices up. You are looking at this like some strictly bandwidth issue, you are confusing hardware and bandwidth, or you just are hopping around to keep your point valid by relating to things that don't share the relationship you are trying to make.

NN is totally irrelevant. With or without it the internet will work exactly the same.

LOL, right. Other countries have shown that they have no problem leveling filtering at the application layer. How exactly do you think the Internet works? Do you seriously thing that by default everyone on this planet has their traffic treated equally? That's not a bandwidth thing, that's a which packets get sent before other packets thing, before we even hit talking about bandwidth. You just simply have to look at several other countries and how they're running things and see that your statement is outright false.

it would cause a riot.

No it won't. Because people like you normalize this kind of crap and sow uncertainty into the mix. People who speak out are basically told, "You're a tool!", "You don't understand the problem!", "This isn't what you want!". People like you are the reason companies steam roll over people with little resistance. I get that it's not a malice thing, I'm betting you are banking on the concept of capitalism to save us all from the evil. You can see how well that works by looking at how many food companies there exist. Or insurance companies. We have choices, they are limited and without well established regulations there's just never any room for small players. No one is asking for the government to be the end all, says all. I don't know why you keep running to the tee-total end of the spectrum of what is possible. The US ISPs have demonstrated that they don't have the public's interest in mind. Other countries show that the Internet isn't some homogeneous thing, so thinking that Comcast can't dictate exactly how their link to the Internet works is silly. They can so do whatever they choose and still work with what parts of the world at large they choose.

But all the other ISPs are not that stupid.

You keep using that word stupid and I seriously am wondering if you know what it means. ISPs will do it because they look at profits. It has nothing to do with smart/stupid/riot/peace, etc... ISPs are companies and companies are driven by a single thing, profit. If there is a chance to profit from something, then they will do it. Thinking that they won't flies in the face of the base reason a company exists. I thought you were all about free markets? Anyone who studies free markets knows that ultimately this is the end result of totally open, zero regulation, capitalism. Why are continually trying to act like it doesn't do this? Do you work for a big ISP or something?

All it does is give the Feds more leverage to regulate something that we all want to be free whilst at the same time ensuring our service will continue to suck by making competition less likely.

Just... No. Title II isn't a great fit considering how b

Re:The REAL issue instead of NN

[Karmashock]

Sure, right of way to poles doesn't matter. You're right. We should maintain the monopoly.

Good to know. You're so wise./s

Early birds donâ(TM)t like 2nd mouse

[spinitch]

Poor foresight on administrations enacted rules that incumbents took advantage as first installers. Presumed logic, pass these rules and we invest. Incumbents business plans to install first were based on such assumptions. They have an active asset that donâ(TM)t want others risking damage. Hindsight. While a bit different, similar dynamics slowing wireless small cell deployments but at least municipalities taking a harder look at the access to the assets.

Push them back

[lhowaf]

Pass an ordinance that requires the incumbents to respond to request to prepare their poles within (x) time or face penalties of $(y) dollars per hour. If the incumbents tell the city to pack sand, invoke eminent domain and kick their butts to the curb (revoke their semi-monopolies). After all, Google is standing by and ready to fill the need.
Can you tell IANAL?

Re:Push them back

[bobstreo]

Pass an ordinance that requires the incumbents to respond to request to prepare their poles within (x) time or face penalties of $(y) dollars per hour. If the incumbents tell the city to pack sand, invoke eminent domain and kick their butts to the curb (revoke their semi-monopolies). After all, Google is standing by and ready to fill the need.
  Can you tell IANAL?

If that doesn't work, maybe brave volunteers could start removing AT&T and Comcast equipment from the poles to serve the public interest.

Re:Push them back

[Altrag]

Yeah pretty sure that would be classified as terrorism these days and you're not spending a couple nights in county for civil disobedience and property destruction -- you're disappeared to spend the rest of your days in Gitmo.

Re:Push them back

[chmod a x mojo]

I'm not a lawyer either, but I can read the ruling.

The judges said the law could not be applied to privately owned poles of which only ~20% of all utility poles in the are are, mostly owned by AT&T.

They way it is written and read, the city can use this ordinance on the city owned / publicly owned poles. Makes sense to me, if the city doesn't want to pay for installation and maintenance on the poles, they shouldn't be able to regulate the owner any more strict than the FCC does, but if the city owns the poles they should be able to demand faster turn around times.

Re:Push them back

[lhowaf]

Hence the part about eminent domain. Governments can seize private property for public use following the payment of just compensation for that property. Those poles can't cost all that much, can they?

Re: In Related News...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

What is next, deciding is someone is guilty by popular vote based on how they look?

No, you already have that.

Re:In Related News...

[amiga3D]

Or we could ask what the fuck Congress has to do with the utility poles in the city of Nashville, TN or any other US city. This needs to go higher to SCOTUS so we can have the US Constitution applied to this idiot Federal law she thinks applies to Nashville's Public Utilities.

How is this following the law?

[Kludge]

How is this following the law?
Nashville says, yes, you can put your cables on our right-of-ways, but you have to follow our rules. Incumbent telcos do not move their cables on the right-of-way when told to. The city says, its our property, our rules, we will move your stuff. Federal judge, not city judge, says, no city, you may not tell companies what to do on your own right-of-ways. Sounds like overreach to me.

Re:How is this following the law?

[bws111]

Any of that might matter IF Nashville actually had the legal authority to make those rules. As this case shows, they don't.

The law, as in the Constitution, says that federal laws are supreme over other laws. There is a federal law for pole attachment rules. In that law is an option for a state to certify that they have their own attachment rules. Tennessee has no such rules, therefore the applicable rules are governed by the federal law.

Re: How is this following the law?

[hackwrench]

No the Costitution 14th, says that rights are supreme not laws.

Re: How is this following the law?

[bws111]

US Constitution, Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Re: How is this following the law?

[hackwrench]

And the amendments come after that and alter what's in effect. Also, the Constitution can't alter the very nature of reality itself.

Re: How is this following the law?

[bws111]

And no amendment has altered the supremacy clause, so what is your point? And wtf is your second sentence supposed to mean?

Re: In Related News...

[hackwrench]

Following which laws though. There was a law, the city's and the judge rejected it for some mumbo jumbo interpretaton of a law passed by a different legislature.

Re:Struggling

[Karmashock]

You want to open with an insult? Nice. Well, then let us see if your post is just another desperate plea for attention and relevance from a basement dwelling failure. Eh? Haven't read any of your post thus far... but quid pro quo, let us start with an insult.

As to charging content providers, if they don't pay they get service cut which leads to the content not being provided which... gets us to the same place.

Imagine if Comcast blocked or severally degraded Netflix etc... it wouldn't be acceptable.

That is a null complaint as the distinction between X and Y is nil.

As to the problem with competition is that someone wins and thus drives out everyone else. I can go through a large series of industries where that didn't happen and there was no government regulation stopping it from happening.

Generally speaking you get this problem not from markets but from government intrusions into markets. Due to regulation, licensing, etc it is made illegal to compete with someone.

If you disagree, cite an example and I'll either show you the competition that exists there or the government regulation that is forcing that situation.

What you're asking for is more poison to cure the disease.

We have another example in this Slashdot article of my point. You have competition coming in and it gets forbidden.

Turning a blind eye to that doesn't make you more informed. It makes you willfully ignorant.

And please, in the future, refrain from starting your posts with stupid insults. It doesn't make you sound more intelligent or incline anyone to talk to you. I did so in the likely vain hope that you'll realize that is in poor form and actually make an effort to not be a degenerate in the future.

Re:Struggling

[Karmashock]

As to starting conversations, actually I'm very happy to leave areas that don't care to their misery.

However, if and when people complain, I will point at what the problem is and they can deal with that or not.

Also, if people like the government option, we can just create a federal uniform code for how right of way to towers is addressed.

I'm sure it can be justified under interstate commerce etc. And there you go. Monopolies broken.

Re:In Related News...

[fafalone]

As I understood this, it was ruled that it was subject to federal rule because it's interstate commerce. SCOTUS thinks interstate commerce includes imprisoning you for a plant you grow on your own land, legally under state law, for exclusively your own consumption. Because you growing means you didn't buy it elsewhere, and elsewhere includes potential sellers that may have bought it from another state, so it effects the market. What possible chance do you think this has under that (blatantly unconstitutional) interpretation of the commerce clause? Not a chance they'd overturn a precedent like this, it would cripple loads of government agencies to narrow the commerce clause enough that it wouldn't apply to interstate telecom networks' local holdings. We lost any hope of any meaningful restriction on federal power decades ago, and it's a one way ratchet.