
AT&T sues Louisville to stop Google Fiber from using its utility poles - pavornyoh
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/att-sues-louisville-to-stop-google-fiber-from-using-its-utility-poles/
======
SwellJoe
The telecoms are masters of destroying competition through legislative means.
They utterly destroyed DSL competition during the dawn of broadband (my first
company sold to independent ISPs; I watched them all wither and die within the
span of about four years, as broadband took over and they were prevented from
competing by shady behavior by AT&T and Verizon), and now they're trying
everything at their disposal to continue to deliver poor service at high
prices without effective competition.

The difference this time is that Google is bigger than they are, and not
_quite_ as much of a pushover in the legal domain. It's still an uphill
battle, and consumers are still going to be the ones to suffer under
pathetically poor quality and expensive Internet service (the US is something
like 14th in quality/speed/price in the world for Internet service, despite it
having been invented here, and despite having vastly more infrastructure
investment at all levels).

The best thing that could possibly happen for the Internet in the US would be
the swift and total annihilation of anti-competitive companies like AT&T,
Verizon, and the major cable companies, leaving room for innovators to step in
and fill the void. But, that won't happen...they're too good at stacking the
deck to remain in leadership positions in the market, despite delivering
terrible service on nearly every front.

Not that I'm bitter, or anything.

~~~
rayiner
The fact is that the telecom industry has return on capital among the lowest
of any industry: [http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-
corp...](http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-
finance/our-insights/a-long-term-look-at-roic) (Exhibit 2). Software and
related services, in contrast, has among the highest returns.

So if Google is looking to spend a billion dollars, they can make several
times as high a return putting that into their software and services
operations than into building fiber. But ultimately, Internet companies are
reliant on the physical infrastructure to provide their service. That puts
them in an odd situation: they need _someone_ to build those pipes, but they'd
rather not do it themselves because that's not an efficient use of their
capital.

So has it occurred to you that nobody wants to step in and compete, not
because of the regulatory hurdles,[1] but because no investor wants to pour
billions of dollars into an industry that's about as good at making money as
airlines?

[1] After all, investors pour tons of money into highly regulated industries
like pharmaceuticals, because the return on investment justifies it.

~~~
amazon_not
Dense countries like Norway? Please. Norway has 15 people per square mile.

~~~
untog
Averages probably aren't so useful there, though. Like Canada - the average
population per square mile is insanely low, but actually the vast majority of
the population live clustered close to the US border.

~~~
sondr3
Yes, but in Norway they are spread out around quite far from one another, it's
not like Canada in that regard.

~~~
sgt101
It seems to me that the median number of people per km excluding all the 0 kms
would be most useful, but difficult to work out (hint hint if you are really
clever and know where this is hint hint kissy kissy?)

------
tzs
Most of the comments are discussing broader issues that aren't actually part
of this particular lawsuit. Those issues are certainly more interesting than
the narrow issue that this lawsuit is about, so I can understand why everyone
wants to talk about them. Nevertheless, we should have at least _some_
discussion about the actual lawsuit, so I'll have a shot at it. :-)

I took a look at AT&T's court filing (there's a link in the article to it for
those who want more detail). They make two main arguments.

The first argument is that under FCC rules an entity with existing attachments
is entitled to written notification if someone else's attachment is going to
affect their facilities. They then have 60 days to modify their attachments to
accommodate the new attachments. If they do not complete the work on time to
accommodate the new attachments, then the entity wanting the new attachment
can go ahead and do the work themselves.

Under the municipal ordinance the new attacher only has to provide
notification if they think that their work is likely to cause a customer
outage. If not they can simply go in themselves and move or modify the
existing attachment.

This is at odds with the FCC rules, and AT&T argues that this should
invalidate the municipal ordinance.

The second argument AT&T makes is that while the Federal law _does_ allow
states to override FCC pole attachment rules in some circumstances, Kentucky
state law vests such power exclusively in the Public Service Commission of
Kentucky (and they cite Kentucky court cases confirming that this includes the
power to regulate pole attachments). Thus, AT&T argues, the municipal
government does not have authority to enact its ordinance.

These actually seem like pretty decent arguments. I'm curious what
counterarguments the defendants will raise.

~~~
bavcyc
There is an actual physical basis for AT&T's position. When a pole line is
designed, the poles and guys are designed for certain criteria (power poles
are NESC and/or RUS plus any state specific regulations). If someone wants to
attach to the same pole then the pole may not support the new attachment per
NESC (for power poles) or the guying may need adjustment. Reviewing the new
attachments can take time, 60 days is not unreasonable.

Along with this, the poles may need to be surveyed depending on how long the
poles have been installed. Poles installed a long time ago may not have
drawings and that means a field visit to collect the information.

If the party wanting to attach to a pole provides sealed drawings from an
engineer that the attachments have no adverse effect, then it is usually a
quick review of the submitted attachment package to make sure everything is in
order.

~~~
igjeff
While you're not wrong...all of the issues you mention are, in general, issues
that have to be dealt with. Those issues are, however, all addressed as part
of the permitting process to be allowed to attach to the poles.

What's at issue in Louisville is the make ready process _after_ the permit has
been issued (after it has been determined that the poles have enough room and
are strong enough to handle the new wires).

------
datashovel
Publications just need to continue to follow these stories, and print relevant
details. The rest will take care of itself.

Investors with large stakes in AT&T, and board members, need to take a look in
the mirror and ask themselves whether the CEO's compensation is in line with
his ability to ask his legal department to sue people / companies /
governments, or is it in line with his ability to make at&t a great company
that accomplishes amazing things for its customers.

------
gjkood
I read a book a long time ago about AT&T Bell Labs. I think it may have been
"Three Degrees Above Zero", but I am not sure now.

Something that impressed me a great deal at that time was the testing that
AT&T used to do with utility poles, to ensure that it withstands the vagaries
of nature and time in all types of climatic zones.

~~~
kajecounterhack
I read the same thing in this book! [http://www.amazon.com/Idea-Factory-Great-
American-Innovation...](http://www.amazon.com/Idea-Factory-Great-American-
Innovation/dp/0143122797) I'm from Holmdel NJ, the old location of bell labs.
Really cool how they used to invent so much.

~~~
SwellJoe
Bell Labs was spun off from AT&T into Lucent 20 years ago. A shell of its
former self is now owned by Nokia, by way of a variety of mergers and
acquisitions.

~~~
yeukhon
Is the lab in NJ still active? I heard it was abandoned or at least void of
life there.

------
jleader
My understanding is that telephone, cable, and power providers share the
poles. Don't the power companies usually own the poles? So if they added
internet providers to the list of companies authorized to share the poles,
AT&T wouldn't have grounds for complaint. Since internet providers (such as
AT&T) already share the poles, this seems like a reasonable move.

In my neighborhood we had 2 competing cable providers for about a decade, and
they managed to share the poles (along with the phone company and the power
company) without any problems (or at least, any problems that made the news).

~~~
tzs
In this case some poles are owned by AT&T and some are owned by the electric
company.

I expect that this is common. The telephone system and the commercial
electricity distribution system were developed at about the same time, and I
believe that in many cities telephones were widely deployed before
electricity. (I wonder if this is why the phone system provided its own power
rather than relying on power being available at the customer premises?)

------
notlisted
Related: if you want to read how the Telecoms have us over a barrel, and how
they fleeced us all yet never delivered on what they promised, read
[http://www.amazon.com/Broadbandits-Inside-Billion-Telecom-
He...](http://www.amazon.com/Broadbandits-Inside-Billion-Telecom-
Heist/dp/0471660612) (by Om Malik, of GigaOm fame)

~~~
twistedpair
_The Master Switch_ by Tim Wu [0] goes into great detail about how AT&T
invented this racket 120+ years ago and has been perfecting their fleecing
tactics since. I particularly enjoy the opening of the book at a 1916 top hat
banquet celebrating just how filthy rich their monopoly has become under
Theodore Vail.

 _The Idea Factory_ by Jon Gertner [1] however asserts that the AT&T monopoly
allowed Bell Labs to essentially invent the entire information age, but that
without the official monopoly, we no longer see the huge investments in basic
research, and commensurate major break throughs.

Damn if you do. Damned if you don't.

[0]: [https://www.amazon.com/The-Master-Switch-Information-
Empires...](https://www.amazon.com/The-Master-Switch-Information-
Empires/dp/0307390993)

[1]: [https://www.amazon.com/The-Idea-Factory-American-
Innovation/...](https://www.amazon.com/The-Idea-Factory-American-
Innovation/dp/0143122797)

------
jessaustin
TFA isn't clear about this, but I suspect that all of the poles in question
are actually _owned_ by LG&E who operate the electrical lines that hang from
them. So "...its utility poles" in the title should actually be "...the same
utility poles it uses". There probably is some dumb FCC rule that supports
ATT's position here, because after all those rules are written by ATT. One
hopes that courts would decide FCC don't govern how LG&E's poles are used. If
any agency would, surely it would be DoE?

~~~
igjeff
As others have mentioned, the poles in Louisville are owned mostly by a mix of
AT&T (about 40%) and our local power utility (Louisville, Gas & Electric;
LG&E) (about 60%).

But pole ownership really isn't relevant, here. The right for new companies to
attach to the poles isn't in doubt, and isn't part of this dispute.

The dispute here is part of the make ready process...who has the right to
rearrange the wires already on the pole to make space for the new attacher?
Even the right to have the space made available isn't in doubt...it's merely
who does the actual work of making it available.

~~~
jessaustin
Having worked at a CLEC in the mid-2000s, I can well imagine the pain involved
in ATT "making ready" a utility pole. If they have a 60-day window, then in
_the typical case_ , on day 58 they'll bounce your work order with some
nonsensical reason code. So you hurry to follow up with your service rep _that
day_ , but she'll have to "investigate", which will take until the weekend,
and then you'll get a "just resubmit it" on next Tuesday. Then if you're lucky
the made_ready status in the database will change sometime in the _next_ 60
days. At no point will a tech actually visit the pole in question. They just
figure that it's right and proper for a competitor of theirs to have to wait
three months to serve a customer.

------
jfoutz
An elegant reply would be to enact a large fee on privately owned telephone
poles, and then waive the fee for one-touch consenting pole owners.

~~~
bloaf
I'm curious if a municipality could threaten to eminent domain-ify themselves
the utility poles.

------
EliRivers
"This lawsuit is not about Google. It’s about the Louisville Metro Council
exceeding its authority."

Uh huh. I'm sure that if Louisville Metro Council passed an ordinance beyond
their remit about soup kitchens serving the homeless AT&T would be right in
there.

There comes a point when the self-serving lies become so transparent it's
offensive that they'd even say them.

------
drawkbox
This is a losing tactic, just delaying the inevitable or buying time.
Legislation can only stop progress towards innovation for so long.

~~~
r00fus
The petroleum industry has waged a decades old battle against solar, nuclear
and battery technology and they swam in the filthy money.

AT&T is an old hand at monopolizing.

I don't think this is their swan song.

------
XJOKOLAT
Sorry, down-votes accepted, disclaimer that I don't support Google out of
preference at all, but from a consumer point of view, I must say ...

FUCK YOU, AT&T.

