Judge Dismisses AT&T's Attempt To Stall Google Fiber Construction In Louisville (arstechnica.com) 71
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.
Where's the Oral Argument? (Score:2)
I always enjoy listening to the Oral Arguments.
Can any member here point me to any audio or video?
Re: (Score:3)
Now I can see why the case was dismissed with prejudice if that's the typical AT&T argument.
good (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
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 jus
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> 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 _o
Re: (Score:1)
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 re
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> 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 addi
Re: (Score:1)
> 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 f
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
But..... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That just leaves Kellogg as the major player in the fiber industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: But..... (Score:1)
Wall Street Merger Mania Is Driving Us Toward One Single, Horrible ISP - Probably Named Comcast [techdirt.com]
Good for Google! (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:1)
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: (Score:1)
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.
Do you live under a rock? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Okay.
https://www.bizjournals.com/lo... [bizjournals.com]
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 o
Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A "natural monopoly" is a monopo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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->a
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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 th
Re: (Score:3)
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 re
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Nationalise the infrastructure, rent it at cost to any provider who wants to offer services to end users.
Re: Doesn't matter (Score:2)
But that's commun... no, that's not the word, wait, sensible, that's it.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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 le
Re: (Score:1)
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 hav
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 mark
Re: (Score:2)
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 munic
Re: (Score:2)
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 fro
Re: (Score:2)
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 tu
Shady business as usual (Score:3)