Ajit Pai Does Something Right, Will Reform Stupid Utility Pole Rules To Speed Up Fiber Deployment

from the build-it-and-they-will-come dept

There's several reasons that the hype surrounding Google Fiber has stalled; most notably Alphabet executives growing weary of the slow pace and high costs of traditional fiber deployments (something they should have understood going in). But another major obstacle for Google Fiber was the boring old utility pole. Google Fiber attempted expansion in numerous cities like Nashville and Louisville, but ran face first into an antiquated utility pole attachment process that traditionally favored incumbent operators, and lawyers for AT&T and Comcast, who were eager to sue to keep their dominance intact.

As it stands, when a new competitor tries to enter a market, it needs to contact each individual ISP to have them move their own utility pole gear. This convoluted and bureaucratic process can take months, and incumbent ISPs (which often own the poles in question) have a long and proud history of then slowing things down even further by intentionally dragging their feet. After all, the very last thing purportedly "free market" adoring entities like AT&T and Comcast want to deal with is honest to goodness competition.

To help fix this problem, Google Fiber and several other companies proposed new "one touch make ready" rules that would dramatically streamline the pole attachment process. Under this proposal, just one licensed and insured contractor would be allowed to move any company's gear, provided they give advanced notice. When several cities tried to pass such rules regionally, they found themselves on the receiving end of lawsuits by AT&T and Comcast.

Fast forward to last week, when the Ajit Pai FCC formally approved plans to take these "one touch" rules and implement them federally. A statement from Pai correctly assesses that this is one of numerous logjams preventing fiber competition from taking root:

"For a competitive entrant, especially a small company, breaking into the market can be hard, if not impossible, if your business plan relies on other entities to make room for you on those poles. Today, a broadband provider that wants to attach fiber or other equipment to a pole first must wait for, and pay for, each existing attacher to sequentially move existing equipment and wires. This can take months, and the bill for multiple truck rolls adds up. For companies of any size, pole-attachment problems represent one of the biggest barriers to broadband deployment."

To be clear, this isn't going to be some kind of panacea. Such pole-attachment rules only apply to privately-owned poles, and not poles owned by many municipalities. The rule changes also won't apply to twenty states (and DC) that have opted for their own localized rules on pole attachments; rules that still often favor incumbents like AT&T or Comcast who enjoy immense political power at the state level. Google Fiber's disinterest in continuing its broadband disruption efforts also aren't likely to be reversed, though the rule changes should help other competitors in some markets.

For its part, Comcast urged the FCC (pdf) to back off the proposal, claiming it would somehow "impede cable operators’ ability to invest in and deploy broadband infrastructure, to the detriment of consumers and their communities." But the proposal also had the support of industry heavyweights like Pai's one-time employer Verizon, an industry fissure that helps explain Pai's decision to, for once, actually stand up to AT&T and Comcast on an issue of substance.

Filed Under: ajit pai, competition, fcc, fiber, one touch make ready, utility poles

Judge Backs AT&T, Comcast Nuisance Suit Against Google Fiber In Nashville

from the why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept

There's numerous methods incumbent ISPs use to keep broadband competition at bay, from buying protectionist state laws to a steady supply of revolving door regulators and lobbyists with a vested interest in protecting the status quo. This regulatory capture goes a long way toward explaining why Americans pay more money for slower broadband than most developed nations. Keeping this dysfunction intact despite a growing resentment from America's under-served and over-charged broadband consumers isn't easy, and has required decades of yeoman's work on the part of entrenched duopolies and their lobbyists.

Case in point: Google Fiber recently tried to build new fiber networks in a large number of cities like Nashville and Louisville, but ran face first into an antiquated utility pole attachment process. As it stands, when a new competitor tries to enter a market, it needs to contact each individual ISP to have them move their own utility pole gear. This convoluted and bureaucratic process can take months, and incumbent ISPs (which often own the poles in question) often slow things down even further by intentionally dragging their feet.

So in cities like Nashville and Louisville, Google Fiber and other competitors have pushed for so-called "one touch make ready" utility pole reform. These reforms let a licensed and insured contractor move any ISP's pole-mounted gear if necessary (usually a matter of inches), as long as the ISP is notified in advance and the contractor pays for any damages. Under these regulatory reforms, the pole attachment process can be reduced from six months or more to just a month or so -- dramatically speeding up fiber deployment. ISPs like Verizon (in part because Google Fiber isn't encroaching on their East Coast turf) have supported the changes.

But because this would accelerate competitor broadband deployments as well, incumbent ISPs like AT&T, Comcast and Charter Spectrum did what they do best: they filed nuisance lawsuits against both Nashville and Louisville -- claiming they'd exceeded their legal authority in updating the rules. The companies proclaim they're simply concerned about the potential damage to their lines (ignored is the fact that the contractors doing the work are often the same people employed by ISPs), but the lawsuits are driven by one thing: fear of competition.

In Louisville this tactic didn't work so well, with a Judge ruling that the city was perfectly within its legal rights to manage the city's utility poles. ISPs had claimed that these cities' authority was over-ridden by FCC rules, though even the FCC itself backed Google Fiber and the cities in this fight (obviously this position, like most pro-competitive policies, were reversed when Trump appointed Ajit Pai to head the FCC last fall).

In Nashville however those same ISPs last week scored a major victory on the news that a Judge has backed incumbent ISP claims that the city did not have jurisdiction over utility poles -- and that the policy change violates contract law. Google Fiber, for its part, says it's reviewing the ruling:

"We're reviewing today's court ruling to understand its potential impact on our build in Nashville," a Google spokesperson said. "We have made significant progress with new innovative deployment techniques in some areas of the city, but access to poles remains an important issue where underground deployment is not a possibility."

There's several reasons Google Fiber announced last fall that it was pivoting toward wireless/fiber hybrid deployments. One was the high cost and slow pace of fiber deployment, but another was the kind of legal and regulatory roadblocks being erected by the likes of AT&T, Charter and Comcast, who are utterly terrified at the faintest specter of competition disrupting their all-too-cozy markets. Google Fiber has managed to avoid some of these obstacles via technologies like microtrenching, but the incumbent ISP goal of slowing the rise of competition has proven successful overall.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, google fiber, nashville, one touch make ready, utility poles
Companies: at&t, c harter, comcast, google

AT&T Backs Off Nuisance Lawsuit Intended To Hamstring Broadband Competitors Like Google Fiber

from the we-hate-regulation----unless-it-hurts-the-other-guy dept

The boring old utility pole has long been at the heart of this country's broadband dysfunction. As it stands now, competing ISPs looking to deploy fiber need to contact each individual ISP -- and wait for them to finalize layers of paperwork and move their own gear -- before the competitor can attach fiber to the pole. Needless to say, ISPs have often abused this bureaucracy to stall competitors' arrival to market. So over the last few years Google Fiber has convinced several cities to pass "one touch make ready" utility pole reform rules that dramatically streamline this process.

Under these reforms, one licensed, insured contractor (often the same company ISPs already use) is allowed to move any ISPs' gear -- provided they inform the ISP ahead of time and pay for any potential damages. The regulatory change can dramatically speed up fiber deployment, saving numerous months in project delays. That's why Google Fiber convinced cities like Nashville and Louisville to pass these one touch rules a few years ago.

But Nashville and Louisville were subsequently sued by Comcast, Charter and AT&T. The ISPs' lawyers threw out every legal argument they could, including claims that the cities had exceeded their legal authority, that the reforms would dramatically increase service outages, and even that the reforms violated their first amendment rights. Of course the ISPs' real problem is that such reform speeds up the arrival of a concept regional duopolies loathe: actual, genuine competition.

In this case, AT&T's gambit didn't work all that well. Back in August, a Judge killed off AT&T's lawsuit against Louisville, stating the city was well within its legal authority to manage the city's own rights of way (even though AT&T owns 40% of the poles in the city). AT&T appears to have gotten the message, as the telco told news outlets there this week they wouldn't be appealing the ruling:

"AT&T will not appeal a federal judge’s ruling upholding a local law Louisville Metro passed last year to make it easier for new Internet providers like Google Fiber to access utility poles in the city. AT&T spokesman Joe Burgan confirmed the company decided not to appeal U.S. District Judge David Hale’s August 16 ruling upholding the so-called “One Touch Make Ready” ordinance.

The lawsuit still had its intended effect in delaying Google Fiber in Louisville while AT&T worked to lock existing customers there into long-term contracts. Google Fiber meanwhile has been forced to pivot from fiber to wireless/fiber hybrid deployments in part to get around these lawsuits. But the company also managed to use techniques like microtrenching (which involves using machines that bury fiber just a few inches below the road's surface) instead of having to rely on access to utility poles. It's worth noting that a similar Charter lawsuit against Louisville, and AT&T and Comcast lawsuits against Nashville are still pending.

Instead of offering better, faster, cheaper service, these companies' first instinct is almost always to either file nuisance lawsuits, or to quite literally buy state laws that make life harder on would-be competitors. And while you'll often see incumbent broadband duopolies and their policy cronies crying incessantly about "burdensome regulation" while pushing for blind deregulation, the reality is these companies adore regulation -- just as long as it hurts the other guy and slows any attempt to bring competition to bear on a broken market.

Filed Under: competition, google fiber, lawsuits, one touch make ready, utility poles
Companies: at&t, google

Court Says Location Of FBI's Utility Pole-Piggybacking Surveillance Cameras Can Remain Secret

from the OPERATION-REMORA dept

Last June, the FBI engaged in a public records lawsuit on its own behalf, seeking to prevent the city of Seattle from disclosing the locations of cameras the agency had mounted on city-owned utility poles. At the center of the case (for a short while) was privacy activist Phil Mocek, whose public records request for this information had spurred the FBI into action.

In its arguments against the city's disclosure of this information, the government posited the novel theory that revealing the cameras' locations would violate the privacy of those the FBI was actively surveilling.

Because of their close proximity to the subjects of surveillance, unauthorized disclosure of the locations of current or previously installed pole cameras can reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy for those persons under investigation who have not yet been charged.

It made several related arguments in hopes of keeping this info from being revealed, including a modified "mosaic" theory and that, while all surveillance cameras are nominally created equal, the FBI's were more equal than others.

The FBI’s use of surveillance cameras must be distinguished from that of any other state or federal law enforcement agency on two principal grounds. First, in light of the FBI’s unique law enforcement and national security missions, there are particular sensitivities attached to the FBI’s use of surveillance equipment and the tradecraft associated with that use. Second, unlike the use of surveillance cameras by other entities, such as state and local governments or private businesses, which may operate video surveillance cameras in public locations to deter crime or promote public safety generally, the FBI utilizes surveillance cameras only in furtherance of an authorized investigation of a particular subject(s).

The FBI presumably doesn't use its cameras to troll for criminal activity, at least according to its courtroom assertions. The City of Seattle, however, didn't feel particularly compelled to protect the location info of the FBI's parasitic contributions to its utility poles. Phil Mocek was removed from the FBI's suit, leaving the city to defend its proposed disclosure against the FBI's claims of a future full of unsurveilled criminal activity.

The FBI's lawsuit has now wrapped up with the agency coming out on top. In a short order, federal judge Richard Jones finds the location of the FBI's publicly-mounted cameras to be deserving of ongoing secrecy. From the court's order [PDF]:

The United States contends, and the Court is persuaded, that the requested information is (1) protected by the federal law enforcement privilege; (2) federal property, subject to the FBI’s right to control and prohibit the disclosure of the information by the City, absent the express authorization of the FBI; and (3) expressly protected from disclosure by the PRA. The Court is further persuaded that the disclosure of the requested information by the City will cause irreparable harm to important federal interests, namely, the ability to carry out effective investigations of criminal violations and national security threats.

The order includes an injunction that prevents the city from releasing this information for the rest of forever, no matter the underlying circumstances.

The City of Seattle, including any officers, agents and employees thereof, are hereby permanently enjoined from disclosing, in response to any request under the Washington PRA, or otherwise, the… information that it has received from the FBI, absent the express authorization to do so by the FBI…

This includes information that seemingly would have no further law enforcement use, like those used in closed or fruitless investigations. Unless some of these cameras are located in sparsely-populated areas of the city, it's highly unlikely anyone could work their way backward from the camera's location to determine the identity of the surveillance targets. But the court sees it the way the FBI sees it: that anything it declares to be protected by "law enforcement privilege" should remain that way indefinitely.

Filed Under: fbi, phil mocek, public records, seattle, secrecy, surveillance, utility poles

FCC Lends Support To Google Fiber, Louisville In Fight To Access AT&T Utility Poles

from the beaten-by-bureaucracy dept

As we've been discussing, the hot new broadband battleground is the boring old utility pole. In most existing markets, a new competitor needs the incumbent ISP to move their gear and "make ready" the pole before a competitor can attach their own fiber. With every incentive to slow new competition, incumbent ISPs have long (ab)used this bureaucracy to their advantage. As a result, this preparation can take the better part of a year, especially if gear from multiple incumbents needs moving.

In a recent Google Fiber blog post, the company documented the end result of this logjam. In Nashville, the company noted that of the 88,000 poles in Nashville needed to deploy Google Fiber, over 44,000 will require make-ready work -- but only 33 had been adequately prepped by incumbent ISPs. In response, Google Fiber has been pushing cities like Nashville and Louisville to pass "one touch make ready" rules, which allow an insured, third-party contractor to move any ISP's gear (often a matter of inches), provided they give the incumbent ISP a 15-day heads up.

Unsurprisingly, the response from incumbent ISPs like AT&T and Comcast has been to breathlessly claim that their Constitutional rights are being violated, that Google Fiber is getting preferential treatment, and that these reform rules will result in a dramatic spike in internet outage (despite the fact that some incumbent ISPs often use these exact same contractors for pole work). They've also been quick to file lawsuits claiming that these cities are exceeding their authority and in some instances violating federal pole attachment rules.

In Kentucky, Google Fiber and Louisville this week got an unexpected ally in the FCC, which submitted a statement of interest (pdf) in Kentucky court effectively pointing out that AT&T and Comcast's arguments are nonsensical (at least in Kentucky). According to the FCC, while it does have federal pole attachment rules, Kentucky was one of 20 states to have opted out of those requirements in order to implement their own rules:

"BellSouth maintains in its motion for summary judgment that the Louisville Ordinance conflicts with, and is therefore preempted by, the federal pole-atachment rules promulgated by the Commission under Section 224. That argument is wrong as a mater of law. The federal pole-atachment regulations do not apply in Kentucky because Kentucky has filed a certification invoking reverse-preemption under Section 224(c) and has thereby opted out of the federal pole-atachment rules.

That said, AT&T's lawsuit against Louisville also claims that Louisville's new rules violate Kentucky state law. As we've long noted, companies like AT&T have so much influence on state legislatures that they're often allowed to quite literally write telecom law that specifically hinders competition, as they've done in states like Missouri and Tennessee, regarding municipal broadband. For those playing along at home, these are the same incumbent ISPs that whine endlessly about "burdensome regulations," unless they're the ones writing said regulations to hamstring competitors.

All told, this sort of bureaucratic protectionism is one of several reasons Google Fiber executives are pondering a pivot to next-generation wireless.

Filed Under: fcc, google fiber, louisville, one touch make ready, otmr, utility poles
Companies: at&t, comcast, google