AT&T is suing the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government over an ordinance that, according to AT&T, permits third parties to perform work on AT&T's communications network. AT&T is seeking an injunction to restrain Louisville from enforcing the ordinance:
AT&T is suing to block the city of Louisville from moving forward with its plan to bring in the Google Fiber service. The telecoms giant filed a complaint [PDF] in federal court on Thursday seeking to prevent the Kentucky's largest city, and Jefferson County, from allowing Google's contractors to access utility poles in order to string fiber lines.
Earlier this month, the city passed an ordinance giving third party contractors, in this case contractors working for Google, right-of-way access to utility poles. The rule is seen as a vital component for launching the Google Fiber service in Louisville. AT&T (along with Time Warner Cable) has argued against the ordinance, saying that the contractors could cause damage to their existing lines when stringing up the new cables.
Failing to win over the city's Metro Council in a vote, AT&T has now taken the matter to the US District Court for Western Kentucky, alleging that the city's ordinance violates FCC rules on pole access and that Metro Council acted outside of its legal authority in passing the ordinance. "Under the new ordinance, where a third party seeks to attach equipment to a utility pole in the rights-of-way and AT&T already has lines or other equipment on the pole, the third party may remove, alter, and relocate AT&T's facilities as it deems necessary," AT&T says in its filing.
Google Fiber has released a blog post in support of Louisville:
We were heartened and encouraged when, a few weeks ago, the City of Louisville, Kentucky unanimously passed [PDF] an ordinance that paves the way for its residents having access to faster and better broadband. So yesterday when we heard that AT&T was suing the City of Louisville for passing this so-called "One Touch Make Ready" rule, we were disappointed.
[...] This work would be done by a team of contractors the pole owner itself has approved, instead of having multiple crews from multiple companies working on the same pole over weeks or months. One Touch Make Ready facilitates new network deployment by anyone—and that's why groups representing communities and fiber builders support it, too.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Subsentient on Sunday February 28 2016, @10:09AM
Sometimes I think AT&T is incapable of playing fair. Ever. In Arizona here, we don't have Comcast. But we have these bastards.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheReaperD on Sunday February 28 2016, @02:33PM
The incumbent telecoms have spent a lot of time and money creating local monopolies that no one else was allowed to compete. Even in areas that they did not have a non-compete clause with the local authorities, they had worked out non-competes with their competitors to make sure that they did not move into "their" area even if the local officials wanted it. Now, they're trying to use the courts to force local officials to accept the non-compete environment against their will. They have never played fair since the days of Ma Bell and have no intention of starting now.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday February 28 2016, @10:48PM
Have you actually READ the complaint?
There are some valid points in there:
1) Louisville Metro had no authority to adopt the ordinance, because Kentucky law gives the Kentucky Public
Service Commission exclusive jurisdiction to regulate pole attachments.
2) Under the FCC’s regulations, an entity with existing attachments, including AT&T, is entitled to prior written notice in the event any make-ready work would affect the entity’s facilities. FCC regulations also require 60 days notice when touching other vendors equipment.
3) Google wanted the rights to move, reroute relocate any of AT&T's infrastructure, as long as they don't disrupt service, and they wanted to do this without any notice, and only 30 days notice if there was likely to be a disruption.
That being said, I have no doubt that AT&Ts complaint was filed as a delaying tactic, because their own brief indicates that Google has the same right that they do to use these poles.
BUT on the other hand, Google's end-run around the regulations was clearly designed for a fast dash installation.
Now if AT&T had asked for that YOU would be first in line bitching about that.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28 2016, @11:23PM
Why would I be bitching about more competition?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 28 2016, @10:16AM
Actually several thoughts chased around my head as I read TFA. What I end up with is, there are already agreements in place, or in some cases, laws and ordinances, which require the sharing of poles.
Depending on your location, your electricity, cable service, telephone service, and possibly other services are all strung from the very same poles. Damn if I can cite specific instances, but I've traveled all around the US. Sometimes, I've actually looked at those phone poles. and I've often seen multiple lines running along the streets, sharing the same poles.
Yes, in other cases, I've seen electric lines suspended on one set of poles, while another, separate (sometimes smaller) set of poles held the telephone lines. Here, where I live, the electricity has it's own set of poles, and the phone line is all underground.
There are only so many variations possible, and I'm sure they've all been explored. AT&T might get away with charging Google for access to it's poles, but I don't think they can get away with blocking access.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28 2016, @11:15AM
they're not at&t's poles. their argument is simply that when the google people will work, they may break at&t's lines. which i don't think is worth a comment from me.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday February 28 2016, @11:44AM
You know what is worth a comment, though? Grunting like a pig while coming in a woman's ass. My big ol' fat belly resting on that butt, like a disgusting greasy pig. Pig disgusting.
Uuuuuuuugggggghhhhhhhhh.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday February 28 2016, @10:55PM
Exactly. They aren't sueing to keep Google off the poles. Just to make them follow federal and state laws about pole sharing.
Google installation jobs haven't actually been non-impactful in other cities.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article30323010.html [charlotteobserver.com]
http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/technology/article604534.html [kansascity.com]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/4/wiring-cities-for-google-fiber-not-always-pretty/?page=all [washingtontimes.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by BsAtHome on Sunday February 28 2016, @01:35PM
The first thing to go in a hard capitalistic system is competition. Once a vendor reaches the state of monopoly, it is over with competition and capitalism is explored to new heights.
Welcome to neofeudalism, corporatocracy and modern slavery.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Pslytely Psycho on Sunday February 28 2016, @01:37PM
When Ma Bell,* the monopoly that ran the telephones, was broken up in 1984 and became AT&T and seven regional 'baby bells' we used to joke that they had a new motto: "AT&T, we'll be a monopoly again." Since that time they managed to re-absorb 4 of those 'baby bells.'**
Although they have not managed to become that monopoly again, (not for lack of trying!) this is just a straightforward example of the aggressiveness they have always been known for. For instance, they resisted privately owned phones and fought to keep competitors out of the market pretty successfully in the 60's and 70's. At that time you leased your phone from the Bell System and you weren't allowed to purchase it. Nobody was allowed to compete with them. And they were good at keeping it that way.
When they realized they were going to lose the antitrust suit originally filed in 1974 they proposed their own breakup to the courts in 1982 to prevent the government from chopping them into even smaller bits. One of the 'Baby Bells,' Southwestern Bell, acquired AT&T and co-opted the AT&T name as it was better recognized as they had been the national long distance carrier after the breakup. In 1996 the Telecommunications act allowed the Bells to begin re-consolidating.
So this is nothing new, they have always been like this. Their argument is pure fiction as many poles here carry cable and phone lines from multiple carriers without them being damaged (usually, but accidents do happen) by each other. I doubt Google is plotting on intentionally damaging their lines. It would be criminal and horrible publicity, so their real argument is: "Their standing in the way of us becoming a monopoly again!"
Shades of Ma Bell...
*For those not from the U.S. or too young to know, Ma Bell was the nickname we commonly refereed to the largest American phone provider at the time, The Bell System. There were a couple of small exchanges they didn't own, but they couldn't rightfully be called competition, and the courts agreed.
**2 of them merged to become Verizon, 1 of them eventually became Century Link.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2, Funny) by redneckmother on Sunday February 28 2016, @03:52PM
A popular quote from that era:
Judge Greene is a Bell Buster!
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by gnuman on Sunday February 28 2016, @06:49PM
For instance, they resisted privately owned phones and fought to keep competitors out of the market pretty successfully in the 60's and 70's. At that time you leased your phone from the Bell System and you weren't allowed to purchase it.
Here in Manitoba, Canada, local telco monopoly had that in 90s!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 08 2016, @02:43AM
Roseville Telephone, which was family owned and operated until being bought by Consolidated Communications.
I remember complaints about them being more expensive, especially for long distance than Pacific Bell (which serviced all the adjoining areas.) RT eventually became cheaper, and as a result of the dotcom bubble managed to buy WinFirst, a local startup that was laying fiber to work around PacBell's and then AT&T's lack of advancement in the local networking space. They finally ended up falling into an 'economic equilibrium' pit a few years back and weren't profitable enough to continue against the Comcast/AT&T monopolies (I assume in part due to their size impacting their negotiating ability for channels for the 'triple play' packages all the 'ISP's have to push nowadays.
Long story short, other people now get cable packages for less than my internet costs, but my internet is 2x as fast as when I got it(8-16x the PacBell/ATT rate), never hear complaints about running services off it, nor bandwidth overages (although I have throttling in place to make sure I don't go significantly over quota each month), and have commercial plans at similiar download speeds for only 10-40 bucks more a month if you're willing to do yearly to tri-yearly renewal cycles with unlimited quotas.