AT&T and Comcast helped elected official write plan to stall Google Fiber

Elected official asked AT&T and Comcast to submit plan for utility poles.

Read the whole story

 

[ten91]

Weiner said, “I had them [AT&T and Comcast] submit it for me as I was out of town all last week on business (my day job)."

Ok. Seriously. The fuck.
Why don't they just send one of their guys over to fill in for Weiner so they can just go on vacation for a week.

 

[THavoc]

Elected official asked AT&T and Comcast to submit plan for utility poles.

AT&T has responded with their plan

No way in hell are we going to allow competition in areas we control

 

[gizmotoy]

While I don't share her view I feel like she took a justifiable concern, whether there was a less radical option than OTMR, and then went about trying to resolve it in the least appropriate way possible.

 

[murst]

So right now, there are two plans. One created by Google, the other created by Comcast/ATT.

Honestly, I can understand why Comcast and ATT would be a little nervous about having a third party work on their lines. I can also understand that Google feels like Comcast/ATT are stalling.

Why not have a plan that meets somewhere in the middle.

For example, have Google make a request, and allow Comcast/ATT 2 weeks to complete the request. If Comcast/ATT doesn't complete it in 2 weeks, then Google could do it themselves.

I just don't get why its so difficult.

 

[Fearknot]

Google Fiber says that it would need access to 44,000 more poles in Nashville to complete a citywide buildout.

The resolution also says the companies should complete work on an average of 125 poles per week, whereas the current process only accommodates 100 poles every 30 days.

So the overall installation time went down from 36 years to 6.7 years. Technically, that's an improvement, but it's still long enough that the technology will be outdated by the time they're done. That right there should be sufficient reason to reject this proposal.

Has Google indicated how long they'll take to do 44,000 poles with OTMR?

 

[icrf]

ten91[/url]":2gy3jeem]

Weiner said, “I had them [AT&T and Comcast] submit it for me as I was out of town all last week on business (my day job)."

Ok. Seriously. The fuck.
Why don't they just send one of their guys over to fill in for Weiner so they can just go on vacation for a week.

More seriously, that's actually indicative of a major problem with state and local legislatures. They're either part time jobs and/or pay so little that another job is required to make ends meet. Of course full time highly paid corporate lobbyists are going to have an undue amount of influence against people like that.

 

[Z1ggy]

Weiner wants to increase the penalty fees. “I have asked them [AT&T and Comcast] to tweak it to make the fines steeper and more of a deterrent,” she said. “Instead of a flat $500 per pole fine, it increases the second month to $1,000 and the third month to $1,500 per pole delayed.” The resolution text doesn’t include those changes yet, but they will be considered during the meeting, she said.

so why did AT&T need to make the tweaks? why couldnt Weiner?
and if they arent in the resolution text they dont exist.

 

[NetworkElf]

I wonder if AT&T and Comcast keep doing this sort of thing in hopes that people will become bored with reading stories about their rotten, anti-consumer behavior and let them get away with it without a challenge?

 

[THavoc]

NetworkElf[/url]":3tb99pvs]I wonder if AT&T and Comcast keep doing this sort of thing in hopes that people will become bored with reading stories about their rotten, anti-consumer behavior and let them get away with it without a challenge?

That would be true if they actually cared about what their customers (and others) think.

Since they don't, well, you do the math.

 

[ackmondual]

The politics of ISPs are certainly as complex and annoying to deal with as the politics of... well, politics.

 

[arkiel]

ten91[/url]":6sgar8nb]

Weiner said, “I had them [AT&T and Comcast] submit it for me as I was out of town all last week on business (my day job)."

Ok. Seriously. The fuck.
Why don't they just send one of their guys over to fill in for Weiner so they can just go on vacation for a week.

Exactly how much of your duty as an elected official are you allowed to just fucking sell to a third party?

The implications of this are goddamn breathtaking, nevermind the characteristic AT&T and Comcast collusion.

 

[Sarkazein]

I really, really hate articles like this.

I realize that this is anathema to say this, but I have AT&T (1Gb down and up) through U-Verse, and the throughput is almost always right about the advertised speed. My phone also goes through them as I get a healthy discount through my work. It really pisses me off because I know I pay a lot for it, but the customer service (the few times I've had to use it in 5+ years) has always been good and fast.

With that said, it absolutely pisses me off to see how they try to stifle competition. They are consistently in the news for basically being giant corporate douche bags, afraid of anyone encroaching on their turf. They have enormous profits (in the billions), but want to sit on their laurels. It's just so weird that the company that has been relatively good for me is in actuality a bag of dicks, consistently.

I wish their was an alternative, sure, but that is exactly what they fight against. And without them, I don't have internet in the first place. It's the perfect Catch-22, for them.

 

[jonars]

I'm fairly certain it is typical for a company or interested party to write a proposal and a representative to introduce it. A council member position isn't a full time job. Weiner didn't do anything wrong procedure-wise... she is just introducing a a proposal that will be very unpopular with anyone who actually wants ISP competition.

 

[Nilt]

murst[/url]":288sdus4]Honestly, I can understand why Comcast and ATT would be a little nervous about having a third party work on their lines.

While there are absolutely reasonable concerns to be had regarding this, if someone is properly licensed and insured then the concern is mitigated. As an IT consultant who handles cross connects for my clients, I've dealt with a number of issues over the years where some incompetent asshat screwed things up. In almost every case, though, it was an unlicensed incompetent asshat. The sole case where it wasn't was simple carelessness by none other than an telecom company technician (not a subcontractor, either, but an actual employee).

Frankly, mistakes can happen and that's why insurance exists. Now, if Google were asking to have unqualified workers doing this, I'd be all for putting a stop to that. Nothing I can find, however, indicates they're asking for anything like that. Quite honestly, a single tech reworking the lines actually reduces the problems over time since you're generally able to fix the snafus that happen when you're forced to work around the issues caused by employees of three other companies

 

[ardent]

The irony is her plan is really good...if it had been brought to the table before Google arrived ready to work. OTMR saves Google time now, her plan would have saved everyone a lot of time enacted 6 years ago.

Less seriously, when asked for her reasoning in involving incumbents Weiner said "Oh it's just for the cable comps. Seriously have you seen how expensive a cable plan is these days?!"

 

[murst]

jonars[/url]":4p8i3j1o]I'm fairly certain it is typical for a company or interested party to write a proposal and a representative to introduce and it. A council member position isn't a full time job. Weiner didn't do anything wrong procedure-wise... she is just introducing a a proposal that will be very unpopular with anyone who actually wants ISP competition.

Yep, this is pretty much standard procedure. You can't expect elected officials to be experts on everything. Like the article stated, Google had a significant role in creating the proposal that is pro-Google (surprise!). Of course, Comcast & AT&T want to create something that favors them.

Hopefully, the elected officials can sort though all of the proposals and pass something that is fair to all parties and is beneficial to their constituents.

 

[THavoc]

Nilt[/url]":2p12cwxb]

murst[/url]":2p12cwxb]Honestly, I can understand why Comcast and ATT would be a little nervous about having a third party work on their lines.

While there are absolutely reasonable concerns to be had regarding this, if someone is properly licensed and insured then the concern is mitigated. As an IT consultant who handles cross connects for my clients, I've dealt with a number of issues over the years where some incompetent asshat screwed things up. In almost every case, though, it was an unlicensed incompetent asshat. The sole case where it wasn't was simple carelessness by none other than an telecom company technician (not a subcontractor, either, but an actual employee).

Frankly, mistakes can happen and that's why insurance exists. Now, if Google were asking to have unqualified workers doing this, I'd be all for putting a stop to that. Nothing I can find, however, indicates they're asking for anything like that. Quite honestly, a single tech reworking the lines actually reduces the problems over time since you're generally able to fix the snafus that happen when you're forced to work around the issues caused by employees of three other companies

Not to mention it is probably the same group of techs that will be doing the work for AT&T and Google.

There's only so many qualified people in any given area.

 

[Mathew Binkley]

Jon, I'm based in Nashville. Thank you and ArsTechnica for keeping the spotlight on this battle. "One Touch Make Ready" comes up for its 3rd and final reading tomorrow, so if you want Google Fiber, *please* come and show your support.

If you support AT&T, someone will be handing out "Nashvillians for Dial-Up" t-shirts as a thank you...

 

[Mr_B]

murst[/url]":fujttt6h]So right now, there are two plans. One created by Google, the other created by Comcast/ATT.

Honestly, I can understand why Comcast and ATT would be a little nervous about having a third party work on their lines. I can also understand that Google feels like Comcast/ATT are stalling.

Why not have a plan that meets somewhere in the middle.

For example, have Google make a request, and allow Comcast/ATT 2 weeks to complete the request. If Comcast/ATT doesn't complete it in 2 weeks, then Google could do it themselves.

I just don't get why its so difficult.

Because "problems" or "oversights" will be found in all of the possible-future-competitor's plans and it will need to be resubmitted for another hold period. Or similar gaming of the system to buy them more time with their monopoly. They can't be trusted to be in charge of destroying their own monopoly, someone else, _anyone else_ has to be in charge of it.

 

[Infinity4011]

THavoc[/url]":3ux3rm14]

Nilt[/url]":3ux3rm14]

murst[/url]":3ux3rm14]Honestly, I can understand why Comcast and ATT would be a little nervous about having a third party work on their lines.

While there are absolutely reasonable concerns to be had regarding this, if someone is properly licensed and insured then the concern is mitigated. As an IT consultant who handles cross connects for my clients, I've dealt with a number of issues over the years where some incompetent asshat screwed things up. In almost every case, though, it was an unlicensed incompetent asshat. The sole case where it wasn't was simple carelessness by none other than an telecom company technician (not a subcontractor, either, but an actual employee).

Frankly, mistakes can happen and that's why insurance exists. Now, if Google were asking to have unqualified workers doing this, I'd be all for putting a stop to that. Nothing I can find, however, indicates they're asking for anything like that. Quite honestly, a single tech reworking the lines actually reduces the problems over time since you're generally able to fix the snafus that happen when you're forced to work around the issues caused by employees of three other companies

Not to mention it is probably the same group of techs that will be doing the work for AT&T and Google.

There's only so many qualified people in any given area.

Pretty much. There's a limited pool of licensed, bonded and insured contractors capable of running thousands of miles of new cable. The telecom's actual employees are usually limited to repairs, new residential installs, and maintenance of the existing plant. New work is farmed out because the companies don't want to pay people they only need every few years.

(because they only expand when they are forced to).

 

[mozbo]

murst[/url]":36c05ukv]So right now, there are two plans. One created by Google, the other created by Comcast/ATT.

Honestly, I can understand why Comcast and ATT would be a little nervous about having a third party work on their lines. I can also understand that Google feels like Comcast/ATT are stalling.

Why not have a plan that meets somewhere in the middle.

For example, have Google make a request, and allow Comcast/ATT 2 weeks to complete the request. If Comcast/ATT doesn't complete it in 2 weeks, then Google could do it themselves.

I just don't get why its so difficult.

2 weeks ... oh, there's a missing comma. 2 more weeks. Oops lost the paperwork. 2 more weeks. Oh, this only applies to 3rd street. Repeat ad nauseum.

Bottom line: It's a horrible idea to give a job to someone with a vested interest in *not* getting the job done, especially when they can't be penalized for goldbricking it.

 

[Ecmaster76]

Under this plan AT&T would have a codified maximum liability of 250,000 per month (4*125*500) to lockout Google.

A real bargain

 

[Nychold]

Fearknot[/url]":261yjdda]

Google Fiber says that it would need access to 44,000 more poles in Nashville to complete a citywide buildout.

The resolution also says the companies should complete work on an average of 125 poles per week, whereas the current process only accommodates 100 poles every 30 days.

So the overall installation time went down from 36 years to 6.7 years. Technically, that's an improvement, but it's still long enough that the technology will be outdated by the time they're done. That right there should be sufficient reason to reject this proposal.

Fiber hasn't become outdated in the 20+ years it's been in service, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. What may become outdated is the 1Gbps symmetric connection, although I highly doubt it, and it's very likely that the fiber Google is using will support much, much faster speeds.

So, no, I don't think a full roll-out time of 6.7 years should be an automatic rejection of the proposal.

 

[murst]

mozbo[/url]":sdlohkwq]

murst[/url]":sdlohkwq]So right now, there are two plans. One created by Google, the other created by Comcast/ATT.

Honestly, I can understand why Comcast and ATT would be a little nervous about having a third party work on their lines. I can also understand that Google feels like Comcast/ATT are stalling.

Why not have a plan that meets somewhere in the middle.

For example, have Google make a request, and allow Comcast/ATT 2 weeks to complete the request. If Comcast/ATT doesn't complete it in 2 weeks, then Google could do it themselves.

I just don't get why its so difficult.

2 weeks ... oh, there's a missing comma. 2 more weeks. Oops lost the paperwork. 2 more weeks. Oh, this only applies to 3rd street. Repeat ad nauseum.

Bottom line: It's a horrible idea to give a job to someone with a vested interest in *not* getting the job done, especially when they can't be penalized for goldbricking it.

Its strange that you're dismissing my proposal by manufacturing problems with it.

I thought it was pretty clear in my proposal that they have 2 weeks to complete it. I don't really recall anything about extensions for missing commas.

The entire point is to allow the people who actually OWN the poles to work on them. If they choose not to do so, then allow the person who needs the work to be done to do it themselves. This both respects the property of Comcast/ATT, and it provides Google with assurance that their needs will be met without much delay.

I thought it was pretty reasonable.

 

[slozomby]

Never trust a weiner, they'll try and s**** you eventually.

 

[beebee]

Fearknot[/url]":2plsbo7l]

Google Fiber says that it would need access to 44,000 more poles in Nashville to complete a citywide buildout.

The resolution also says the companies should complete work on an average of 125 poles per week, whereas the current process only accommodates 100 poles every 30 days.

So the overall installation time went down from 36 years to 6.7 years. Technically, that's an improvement, but it's still long enough that the technology will be outdated by the time they're done. That right there should be sufficient reason to reject this proposal.

Has Google indicated how long they'll take to do 44,000 poles with OTMR?

I would think the basic fiber would be "state of the art" for a long time. The activate dark fiber all the time. Probably the electronics would get outdated.

 

[petergaultney]

The entire point is to allow the people who actually OWN the poles to work on them. If they choose not to do so, then allow the person who needs the work to be done to do it themselves. This both respects the property of Comcast/ATT, and it provides Google with assurance that their needs will be met without much delay.

I thought it was pretty reasonable.

Comcast doesn't own any of the poles. AT&T only owns a small fraction of them. Most are owned by Nashville's municipal electric service company.

It's never been about "pole owners." The overarching issue is that currently, each *cable* owner has to move their cables separately. If there are 10 companies with something attached to the pole, the first company gets 45 days to move their cables, and then the next company gets 45 days to move their cables, etc., etc., etc. Even if reduced to 1 week, it could still take months to make a single pole 'ready' for Google Fiber (or another provider) to attach their cables. This makes no sense. Better to do all of the moving in a single visit, with a single crew. Since the work itself is often done by licensed contractors, it might even be the same crew that would visit the same site two weeks in a row, just to move yet another company's cables. If the laws were sane, they would've just moved both sets in a single visit.

 

[rick*d]

Clue for the Ars staff: This is not news. Our corporate masters have been writing legislation for years.

 

[bcassada]

Mathew Binkley[/url]":24u8bljh]Jon, I'm based in Nashville. Thank you and ArsTechnica for keeping the spotlight on this battle. "One Touch Make Ready" comes up for its 3rd and final reading tomorrow, so if you want Google Fiber, *please* come and show your support.

If you support AT&T, someone will be handing out "Nashvillians for Dial-Up" t-shirts as a thank you...

Ditto this. I work in Nashville -- in the AT&T bldg no less (I do not work for AT&T).

 

[fic]

Nilt[/url]":1gh2qp1q]

murst[/url]":1gh2qp1q]Honestly, I can understand why Comcast and ATT would be a little nervous about having a third party work on their lines.

While there are absolutely reasonable concerns to be had regarding this, if someone is properly licensed and insured then the concern is mitigated. As an IT consultant who handles cross connects for my clients, I've dealt with a number of issues over the years where some incompetent asshat screwed things up. In almost every case, though, it was an unlicensed incompetent asshat. The sole case where it wasn't was simple carelessness by none other than an telecom company technician (not a subcontractor, either, but an actual employee).

So, was the telecom company technician a licensed, incompetent asshat? Or do you have to be unlicensed to be an incompetent asshat?

 

[fic]

petergaultney[/url]":1urgeujg]

The entire point is to allow the people who actually OWN the poles to work on them. If they choose not to do so, then allow the person who needs the work to be done to do it themselves. This both respects the property of Comcast/ATT, and it provides Google with assurance that their needs will be met without much delay.

I thought it was pretty reasonable.

Comcast doesn't own any of the poles. AT&T only owns a small fraction of them. Most are owned by Nashville's municipal electric service company.

It's never been about "pole owners." The overarching issue is that currently, each *cable* owner has to move their cables separately. If there are 10 companies with something attached to the pole, the first company gets 45 days to move their cables, and then the next company gets 45 days to move their cables, etc., etc., etc. Even if reduced to 1 week, it could still take months to make a single pole 'ready' for Google Fiber (or another provider) to attach their cables. This makes no sense. Better to do all of the moving in a single visit, with a single crew. Since the work itself is often done by licensed contractors, it might even be the same crew that would visit the same site two weeks in a row, just to move yet another company's cables. If the laws were sane, they would've just moved both sets in a single visit.

I think a middle proposal could be:
Google - we are working on poles 1181-1200 week X. You are invited to show up and help but we are doing the work whether you are there or not.

 

[fic]

Ecmaster76[/url]":hupbzt8p]Under this plan AT&T would have a codified maximum liability of 250,000 per month (4*125*500) to lockout Google.

A real bargain

Next paragraph:
Weiner wants to increase the penalty fees. “I have asked them [AT&T and Comcast] to tweak it to make the fines steeper and more of a deterrent,” she said. “Instead of a flat $500 per pole fine, it increases the second month to $1,000 and the third month to $1,500 per pole delayed.” The resolution text doesn’t include those changes yet, but they will be considered during the meeting, she said.

So, escalating fine. Don't know if it stops at $1,500 though.
So, $750,000/month in month 3 (if she gets the fees increased).
Or, an added $5/month "administration" fee to each AT&T subscriber in the area.

 

[slozomby]

fic[/url]":8ixl2sxd]

Nilt[/url]":8ixl2sxd]

murst[/url]":8ixl2sxd]Honestly, I can understand why Comcast and ATT would be a little nervous about having a third party work on their lines.

While there are absolutely reasonable concerns to be had regarding this, if someone is properly licensed and insured then the concern is mitigated. As an IT consultant who handles cross connects for my clients, I've dealt with a number of issues over the years where some incompetent asshat screwed things up. In almost every case, though, it was an unlicensed incompetent asshat. The sole case where it wasn't was simple carelessness by none other than an telecom company technician (not a subcontractor, either, but an actual employee).

So, was the telecom company technician a licensed, incompetent asshat? Or do you have to be unlicensed to be an incompetent asshat?

I wonder what the licensing requirements for incompetent asshat are. Do you have to take a course?

 

[Causality]

gizmotoy[/url]":3t4yeioa]While I don't share her view I feel like she took a justifiable concern, whether there was a less radical option than OTMR, and then went about trying to resolve it in the least appropriate way possible.

I guarantee you that Google would pay WAY harsher penalties to AT&T if it fucked up their poles than AT&T would if it broke service to a hundred times as many homes and left it unfixed for weeks.

 

[Azethoth666]

gizmotoy[/url]":1xchdwip]While I don't share her view I feel like she took a justifiable concern, whether there was a less radical option than OTMR, and then went about trying to resolve it in the least appropriate way possible.

You are obviously an industry monopoly shill.

"less radical option than OTMR"

<Some expletive>. Or, imagine the related "dig once" policies. Where instead of three companies digging the exact same holes and trenches then filling them up and repaving, you ... wait for it ... omg this is totally radical! ... just do it once like a sensible person.

OMG, somebody could screw up! Well it is the exact same subcontractors that do the work. If they screw up then someone goes and fixes it and somebody gets charged for this rare screwup. Just from a pure statistics point of view there will be fewer screwups when there are fewer touchings, whether good or bad.

 

[iPirateEverything]

Sheri Weiner

I guess her parents knew she was going to grow up into a dick. A cable sponsored one.

 

[goglen]

Fearknot[/url]":se1ujqwb]

Google Fiber says that it would need access to 44,000 more poles in Nashville to complete a citywide buildout.

The resolution also says the companies should complete work on an average of 125 poles per week, whereas the current process only accommodates 100 poles every 30 days.

So the overall installation time went down from 36 years to 6.7 years. Technically, that's an improvement, but it's still long enough that the technology will be outdated by the time they're done. That right there should be sufficient reason to reject this proposal.

Has Google indicated how long they'll take to do 44,000 poles with OTMR?

With the current regs, they could do 112 a week for periods, maybe 200 other times, but a rolling 8-week average will always ding just them.

Because AT&T and Comcast are already built out, so will rarely need more than a brief spurt to light up a single new neighborhood.

 

[IrishMonkee]

murst[/url]":3c07iqg2]

mozbo[/url]":3c07iqg2]

murst[/url]":3c07iqg2]So right now, there are two plans. One created by Google, the other created by Comcast/ATT.

Honestly, I can understand why Comcast and ATT would be a little nervous about having a third party work on their lines. I can also understand that Google feels like Comcast/ATT are stalling.

Why not have a plan that meets somewhere in the middle.

For example, have Google make a request, and allow Comcast/ATT 2 weeks to complete the request. If Comcast/ATT doesn't complete it in 2 weeks, then Google could do it themselves.

I just don't get why its so difficult.

2 weeks ... oh, there's a missing comma. 2 more weeks. Oops lost the paperwork. 2 more weeks. Oh, this only applies to 3rd street. Repeat ad nauseum.

Bottom line: It's a horrible idea to give a job to someone with a vested interest in *not* getting the job done, especially when they can't be penalized for goldbricking it.

Its strange that you're dismissing my proposal by manufacturing problems with it.

I thought it was pretty clear in my proposal that they have 2 weeks to complete it. I don't really recall anything about extensions for missing commas.

The entire point is to allow the people who actually OWN the poles to work on them. If they choose not to do so, then allow the person who needs the work to be done to do it themselves. This both respects the property of Comcast/ATT, and it provides Google with assurance that their needs will be met without much delay.

I thought it was pretty reasonable.

Is your proposal a resolution or a requirement? If it's just a resolution, then I'd say they were just adding a touch of reality to it. If it's a requirement, it better have some teeth that won't be sued useless and some kind of protection for the Google installer when the local LEC fails to show up on time or at all.

 

[LodeRunner]

As long as any OTMR policy also states that whoever moves the cables is liable for any damages and required repairs, I don't see a problem. So her resolution is pointless except as a way to allow ATT, Comcast, et al. to slow things down.

And as far as her last name, assuming it's German (or similar derivation) in origin, the long vowel would be the i, not the e (typically in Germanic languages 'ie' is 'ee' and 'ei' is 'aye.') So she's whining on behalf of the companies that want Google to leave them alone. Seems fitting.