AT&T Falsely Claimed Pro-Google Fiber Rule Is Invalid, FCC Says (arstechnica.com) 22
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission has given a helping hand to Louisville, Kentucky, in the city's attempt to enforce local rules that would make it easier for Google Fiber to compete against ATT. ATT sued the local government in Louisville and Jefferson County in February to stop a One Touch Make Ready (OTMR) ordinance designed to give Google Fiber or other new competitors faster access to utility poles. Today, the US government submitted a statement of interest (full text) on behalf of the FCC, which says that one of ATT's primary legal arguments is incorrect. ATT -- also known as BellSouth Telecommunications in Kentucky -- argued that the Louisville ordinance is preempted by the FCC's pole-attachment rules. The local ordinance "conflicts with the procedures created by the FCC, and upsets the careful balances struck by the FCC in crafting its pole attachment regulations," ATT's lawsuit said. But that is false, the FCC says. The FCC does have rules ensuring reasonable access to utility poles, but states are allowed to opt out of the federal pole-attachment rules if they certify to the commission that they regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of pole attachments. Kentucky is one of 20 states that has opted out of the federal regime and imposed its own rules, the FCC noted. Accordingly, the federal pole-attachment regulations enacted under Section 224 [of the Communications Act] simply do not apply here," the FCC wrote. More generally, One Touch Make Ready rules are consistent with federal communications policies and regulations that seek expanded broadband deployment, the FCC also wrote.
Where's the punishment? (Score:2)
Shouldn't ATT be punished for not knowing which regulations they need to abide to?
Have they been non-compliant in 20 states?
Re:Where's the punishment? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've had dealings with a three lawyers in any detailed way (I've used a couple of others largely for quicky legal advice or escrow). Of the three lawyers I have had significant dealings with, one was my attorney, one was the opposing party's first lawyer, and the other was the opposing party's second lawyer. My lawyer made it very clear to me from the get-go that under no circumstances was I to lie or distort. My statements and any depositions were to be truthful. My lawyer was at the only deposition I was ever involved with mainly to make sure the other lawyer stayed within the bounds.
Now as to the other party's first lawyer, he did some pretty damned dubious things, one of them in particular which my lawyer viewed as completely unethical. About half way through the case, he removed himself from the case and recommended another firm, which suggested to us that he probably knew he'd fucked up royally. The second lawyer seemed a decent, honest sort who was stuck with a case that should never have been pursued (that's my biased view). In the end he convinced the other party (we were countersuing each other) to accept a relatively small settlement. I was unhappy about having to pay the money, but I did win the war, even if I lost that battle.
So, on purely anecdotal grounds, 4/5s of the lawyers I've met seemed fairly trustworthy, and for the one that didn't, I prefer to think that he was just plain incompetent, rather than malicious. That, of course, may actually be the worst thing a lawyer can be.
Re: (Score:3)
There's no penalty for lawyers lying.
Actually, there is. The problem is proving it. They're allowed to make honest mistakes, and if you want one punished for lying, you have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was a lie and not an honest mistake. Good luck with that!
But if you can prove it, they can be fined or in extreme cases, disbarred.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Who incidentally was also a lawyer.
Re: (Score:1)
My favorite quote concerning the competency of attorneys as written by the presiding judge:
Before proceeding further, the Court notes that this case involves two extremely likable lawyers, who have together delivered some of the most amateurish pleadings ever to cross the hallowed causeway into Galveston, an effort which leads the Court to surmise but one plausible explanation. Both attorneys have obviously entered into a secret pact
Re:Time spent in Jail by CEO and execs (Score:4, Funny)
yup this is the biggest zero-day exploit out there
Who cares! (Score:2)
Stall stall stall till the other guy runs out of money / initiative!!!
Re: (Score:1)
Gee folks - all together now - 1, 2, 3, "FUDD"
A lesson from this (Score:2)
If you're getting your legal advice from ATT you need a real lawyer.
Crony capitalism (Score:3)
Another example of how backwards things are... (Score:2)