Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AT&T Google The Courts Businesses Communications Network The Internet

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Dismisses AT&T's Attempt To Stall Google Fiber Construction In Louisville

Comments Filter:
  • I always enjoy listening to the Oral Arguments.

    Can any member here point me to any audio or video?

  • good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Osgeld ( 1900440 ) on Thursday August 17, 2017 @05:38PM (#55037233)

    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

  • Google is getting out of the Fiber business.
  • Good for Google! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by EzInKy ( 115248 ) on Thursday August 17, 2017 @05:48PM (#55037297)

    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.

  • Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HeckRuler ( 1369601 ) on Thursday August 17, 2017 @05:51PM (#55037307)

    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)

      by mishehu ( 712452 ) on Thursday August 17, 2017 @06:00PM (#55037367)
      Problem is one of history already. Ma Bell always sucked, but at least once upon a time they were truly regulated as a utility, and they also had Bell Labs which had some redeeming value to it. Then the 1980's and 90's come around, and we smash Ma Bell up into the RBOC's. Except now all the RBOC's have been slowly reforming like the T1000 in slow motion to return to being Ma Bell, except now with very little regulation. Just look at that stooge and his stupid oversized coffee cup at the head of the FCC for all your answers to the questions of "what do the next few years have in store for us in the realm of telecommunications and internet access?"
    • 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

      • by Anonymous Coward

        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.

        • 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

      • by Anonymous Coward

        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)

        by mishehu ( 712452 ) on Thursday August 17, 2017 @07:14PM (#55037741)
        During the 1990s before the RBOC's gamed the system by running fiber-to-the-node, they were required by law to give equal access to CLEC's to straight copper runs. At different points in time I had Sprint's ION service as well as various DSL's from Speakeasy/Covad. The law was intended to push the RBOC's to hasten FTTP roll-outs, but the loophole cost us, the citizens, all that competition that had actually sprouted up. At one time I even lived directly behind the CO for my area, and they could have run ethernet from their building to my apartment, but instead ran it as fiber around the block to a terminal, and then copper from there. I had to fight with AT&T (then SBC, after they bought up Ameritech which used to be IL Bell) to get a straight copper run so I could still use Speakeasy instead of AT&T's crappy adsl service. And now where I live we're on a fiber run of several km to the node in the neighborhood, so I can only get service via AT&T. And yet AT&T won't provide me even their old crappy adsl service here because... well they'll never give me the actual reason - others have service here and the linemen have confirmed to me that there's ports in the terminal that could be used.
      • 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

        • 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

          • 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

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        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

  • by pak9rabid ( 1011935 ) on Friday August 18, 2017 @12:19PM (#55041185)
    Make no mistake, this is simply AT&T trying to stall the deployment of Google Fiber. They tried to do the same shit here in Austin, not to mention other shady shit (like trying to persuade all of the local AT&T employees to write a letter to city council stating why it's unfair for the City to force them to allow Google on their poles).

"How many teamsters does it take to screw in a light bulb?" "FIFTEEN!! YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?"

Working...