AT&T Sues Nashville To Keep Google Fiber At Bay
from the utterly-terrified-of-competition dept
We've been talking about how the latest front in the battle for better broadband competition is the boring old utility pole. As Susan Crawford highlighted last month, getting permission from an ISP that owns a city's utility poles can be a slow, bureaucratic nightmare, since the incumbent ISP has every incentive to stall would-be competitors. As such, Google has been pushing for "one touch make ready" proposals that use an insured, third-party contractor agreed to by all ISPs to move any ISP's gear during fiber installs (often a matter of inches).But again, because this would speed up Google Fiber's time to market, incumbent ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, Frontier and Time Warner Cable have all been fighting these reform efforts. Excuses provided by the ISPs range from claims that such reform violates their Constitutional rights, to unsubstantiated claims that such a policy would result in massive new internet service outages. AT&T has taken things one step further, and has been suing cities like Louisville for passing such reform laws.
After the city council voted to approve similar reform last week in Nashville, AT&T has now filed suit against the city of Nashville (pdf), claiming city overreach and immediate injunctive relief. The complaint trots out all of AT&T's greatest hits for opposing the streamlined pole attachment rules, including claims that it allows random troublemakers to "seize" AT&T's property:
"The Ordinance thus purports to permit a third party (the Attacher) to temporarily seize AT&T’s property, and to alter or relocate AT&T’s property, without AT&T’s consent and with little notice. AT&T would be deprived of an adequate opportunity to assess the potential for network disruption caused by the alteration or relocation, and to specify and oversee the work on AT&T’s own facilities to ensure any potential for harm to its network, including harm to the continuity and quality of service to its customers, is minimized."Except that's not true. Most implementations of "one touch make ready" give ISPs ample warning of impending work. Meanwhile, Google Fiber currently needs to wait for incumbent ISPs to prepare the poles for attachment -- a process that can take as long as 9 months if the incumbent ISP has an incentive to stall the process (worse if Google Fiber has to wait for multiple ISPs working in concert). That's something that Google Fiber documented in a blog post recently that has been a real problem in Nashville, where just 33 of the approximately 44,000 poles in the city have been prepared for Google Fiber work.
From Texas to California, AT&T has been accused for years of using its control over city utility poles as yet another avenue to discourage broadband competition. And the telco is surely furious somebody is finally doing something about it in Tennessee, a state whose legislature is so eager to protect AT&T's monopoly it effectively lets the telco write awful state law. Hell, Nashville's city council last week even had the gall to shoot down a Comcast and AT&T written proposal that would have bogged Google Fiber down in committee for months.
Of course these incumbent ISPs know they can't win. Pole attachment is generally supported by communities, many tech associations and government alike, all collectively tired of AT&T's stranglehold over the status quo. But the goal isn't to stop deployment but to slow it down, giving incumbent ISPs more time to not only lock down existing customers into long-term contracts, but to fuel ongoing rumors that Google Fiber is out of its depth.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: google fiber, nashville, one touch make ready
Companies: at&t, google
Reader Comments
The First Word
“eminent domain
If ever there was justification for eminent domain, this is it. Local ISP monopolies or duopolies guarantee that we will overpay for poor service. Enabling competition is the only way to get the US out of third-world ISP status. Given the protectionist nature of AT&Time_Warner, is there any way to apply antitrust regulations?Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Serious Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Serious Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Serious Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Serious Question
>The Govt should just tell them to shut up and go ahead
>with the moving.
The Govt should remind them who owns the poles and give them a choice: accept the terms that the Govt is setting (allow insured third parties to move the hardware) or put up their own company owned poles... subject to Govt approval for the construction, of course heh-heh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Serious Question
Some of the PITA AT&T is complaining about actually makes sense. Moving around things on the poles can cause outages, sometimes requires coordination with head-ends and network centers, and can obviously be simply dangerous. One-touch make ready rules can actually create a monopoly in the "agreed upon" provider that can do the work in certain areas and jack up the prices the telco's are paying (nobody wants to deal with a monopoly).
However, progress really should move forward and we need to come up with a better way than we currently have to get things moved around in a more timely manner. One-touch rules do seem to be better than what we have today, but it's not as simple as it may sound.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eminent domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: eminent domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: eminent domain
It wasn't competition, but effective disruption with new innovations that finally, somewhat broke the stranglehold.
Now Linux and open source are everywhere. Microsoft tried and failed to play catch up on phones / tablets. Microsoft is trying to play catch up with embedded system boards such as Raspberry Pi. Microsoft has had to embrace open source because that's where the developers are. Chromebooks have been the top selling laptops on Amazon for years now. Microsoft has not succeeded at taking over your living room and TV. PCs and Laptops have been declining in sales for several years, which directly affects Microsoft.
I wouldn't mind if Microsoft could play nice. But being anticompetitive is in their DNA. I doubt they can easily get rid of it from their culture.
It's really like AT&T. After the AT&T monopoly breakup, AT&T found that, on long distance service, where it no longer had a monopoly, it couldn't compete its way out of a paper bag. And you'd think it could since it had equipment, experience, etc. But a monopoly mindset.
Like Microsoft, AT&T wouldn't know how to compete in an actual competitive market if its life depended on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: eminent domain
The real problem is the same problem that has always existed and that is corruption in government. Anti-Trust or "regulation" is no more effective than the will of the bought and paid for members of government agencies congress created.
You will NEVER removed corruption from society, so instead, the next best thing is to only use a model that resists the corruption the most. And this is "Capitalism + Free Market + Strong Anti-Trust & Anti-Monopoly law + Consumer Rights laws that prevent things like EULA's and TOS's that are designed to strip legal remedies away from them".
That is about all we would need to combat the VAST MAJORITY of these problems. But no, we cannot have that because people are wired to get into everyone's business like they know what the fuck they are doing and create the WORST POSSIBLE solutions to simple fucking problems. The American population & government is a representative example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
MOST people that believe they know more than they know while doubling down on the stupid, and the few too many people in the know expecting people to see this as EASY to understand and wondering why others "do not get it!"
In the words of "Lo Pan"... many of you "were not put on this earth to get it!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: eminent domain
Whatever seems to think that he's smarter than everyone here. But everyone here tries to explain something to Whatever expecting him to get it because they're such easy concepts for us. But he still never gets it! AND IT'S SOOOOOO FRUSTRATING!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: eminent domain
When someone announces a competing transit system (Toronto for example around a decade ago), inevitably they're only planning to service the money-making routes. Faced with competition only on those routes, the existing transit system can no longer subsidize the lesser routes and would have to drop them. The city steps in and blocks the competition.
Of course, taxi services and private cars and rentals and hotel and event shuttles are all still allowed. They're not direct competition. And the TTC and other transit systems are partnering with ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft to service the remote parts of town.
Granting a limited monopoly to a ISP might make sense. But with strict limits: If they're not providing fiber and a potential competitor will, it's not direct competition, so no monopoly. If their service sucks, no monopoly. And most important: if the competitor can show that they'll service a wide area - not just the money-making parts of town - no monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: eminent domain
If a business wants to invest the money to provide someone a service, they should be allowed to do it. There is ZERO room for allowing someone to come in and be the ONLY player.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: eminent domain
But again, I'm talking about a very narrow set of conditions allowing for a monopoly, with conditions where a new competitor (or bad service from the incumbent) can break that monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: eminent domain
If a "natural" monopoly forms then it should become public property where access is shared under supervision. Yes this will still breed corruption, but not nearly as fast or as bad than if you just give it straight to the public sector. You can NEVER allow government to regulate private property or business, it is a hyper fertile breeding ground for entrenched corruption. Government should only ever be allowed to manage public property.
The ONLY thing regulation produces is an Oligarchy or Oligopoly and it will do it either in the shadows or it will do it right in front of your face just as the FCC did it for the telco's and call it a necessary evil to push off the nay-sayers. Or as I like to call it "The Emperors New Clothes" complexes a lot of pro-regulations have. The corruption is there, its right in their fucking faces and they just say... "wow what nice new clothes the Emperor is wearing or proposing to wear", while looking at nothing but a naked ass fucking corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: eminent domain
Three of those four lines were torn up completely and half of the fourth. The remaining bit of the fourth was purchased and kept open as a private railroad by some farmers and a local industry - with heavy government subsidies.
The farmers that delivered grain via the three and a half rail lines that closed, are screwed. Yes, the oligopoly was corrupt as hell and would make even Comcast blush. But at least the service was there. Outside of the high-population-density and wealthy neighborhoods, the alternative to a monopoly or oligopoly is often simply nothing.
Again, the point of any such monopoly is that it provide universal service. The condition being that it should be easy to break by anyone else willing to provide universal service - rather than just in the most lucrative neighborhoods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did I just read that?
hehe. AT&T claiming overreach. That's a good one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Govt should own the infra-structure and the willing parties should rent it for reasonable pricing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And willing parties can rent *those* as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is no way that any isp could or should be allowed to claim more data costs more , it does not and never will.
The only time bandwidth could become problem is if the isp does not have enough equipment to supply what they have sold and will result in lower speeds thus the inability to send data at the speed they have advised. There is no way that me as a user could ever cause congestion by downloading 100% of the time, the fact is that nobody seems to care that data caps do nothing they do not help anyone they only cause a revenue stream by restricting what you have purchased.
The only people affected by me using my internet connection all the time at the highest speed would be websites that do not have a big enough connection to the internet so cannot have more than a specific amount of computers connecting at any one instant in time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pull Their Francise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid question from the EU
Open up the street, dig 4-5 feet, put a 10-20inch pipe in, close, move to next section.
The advantages are you don't have ugly utility poles everywhere and Google wouldn't have to beg to use other ISPs stuff.
I'm curious if there is a law against that or something because here (Germany) I can drive from a city of 100k people to a town of 100-200 people and dont see one pole on the way (except for those huge power line ones) or in the city/town itself (again, train/bus/... power lines excluded)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid question from the EU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stupid question from the EU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stupid question from the EU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eminent Domain seems appropriate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Thanks for the PR boost, here's your PR black-eye."
I know they've done it in at least one case(not sure if it's this one or not), but doing so would make AT&T and other companies a lot less eager to file suit, knowing that they can't just outspend a local government, make a lot more cities willing to take the risk, and get Google a huge PR boost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Thanks for the PR boost, here's your PR black-eye."
http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/20/google-fiber-commits-attorneys-nash ville-fight-possible-t-lawsuit/90732006/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Thanks for the PR boost, here's your PR black-eye."
They've certainly got the money to do so, and making an offer like that would likely be cheaper in the long run as AT&T and others would avoid suing at all knowing that the cities could and would fight back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]