AT&T, Comcast fail in latest effort to stall Google Fiber in Nashville

City that wants better Internet gears up for court battle against AT&T.

Read the whole story

 

[THavoc]

AT&T and Comcast both expressed disappointment in last night's vote.

I have a few choice words for how much I don't care about how you feel.

They are not kid friendly, so I will refrain.

I will just say this: Quit trying to impede competition.

 

[photochemsyn]

We need to start thinking of fiber optic cable and copper electrical grids the same way we think of water pipes and roadways - a necessary service that all should have access to - it's not a competitive market system, and never could be.

We don't allow private corporations to own roads and charge tolls for passage across them; we don't have multiple competing water pipe systems in cities and towns; likewise, we need to realize that access to high-speed internet (and electricity grids) is key to the economic success of hundreds of free-market participants.

The problem is seen in the phrase "carrying coals to Newcastle" - in old England, certain coal interests owned private roads, preventing other suppliers of coal from using them, thus controlling prices. That's what fiber optic and electrical grid owners are doing today.

 

[WhyNotZoidberg]

"is not a good solution for faster deployment of infrastructure"

Except that it is.

 

[siliconaddict]

AT&T and Comcast both expressed disappointment in last night's vote.

I would pay good money for the bottled tears of ATT and Shitcast's execs. But that requires these assholes to have human emotions to cry.

 

[Akemi]

jonah[/url]":19dxlvra]As irredeemably evil and awful as AT&T and Comcast are (very), I do think there should be some accommodation made by Google Fiber to ensure that its crews don't disrupt other people's wires. They sure as hell don't need to force a foot-dragging AT&T crew to come out and reluctantly move wires (that is maybe the most inefficient thing ever), but there has to be a win-win solution here.

Yes, it's called nationalize the infrastructure or force line-sharing so we don't need twenty different redundant wired networks to have 20 competitors. It's far more reasonable to have cities/states manage the infrastructure just like roadways than it is to keep that insane barrier to entry up for something as critical as Internet access. Overnight you'd see massive increases in competition in every area including those remote rural locations the big boys aren't interested in serving.

But all ATT/Comcast have to do is play the"that's socialism herp-derp" card and dimbulb's everywhere will follow right along with the chants about how they don't want the socialism.

 

[walterwoods]

I live in Nashville and have written to the Metro Council before all of the OTMR votes. I even got a weird response from one council member that had a link to a survey asking me to describe what OTMR does. I assume it was so they could justify voting against it...?

 

[Pitabred]

jonah[/url]":tu0dr943]As irredeemably evil and awful as AT&T and Comcast are (very), I do think there should be some accommodation made by Google Fiber to ensure that its crews don't disrupt other people's wires. They sure as hell don't need to force a foot-dragging AT&T crew to come out and reluctantly move wires (that is maybe the most inefficient thing ever), but there has to be a win-win solution here.

The win-win solution is the single-touch plan. If you need cable, you do it all, and if you screw it up, you get to fix it. That's why those linemen are licensed and regulated, and you require that you use competent contractors. That's about all it takes.

 

[DarthSlack]

jonah[/url]":25zebnse]As irredeemably evil and awful as AT&T and Comcast are (very), I do think there should be some accommodation made by Google Fiber to ensure that its crews don't disrupt other people's wires. They sure as hell don't need to force a foot-dragging AT&T crew to come out and reluctantly move wires (that is maybe the most inefficient thing ever), but there has to be a win-win solution here.

Nope, there isn't unless you make a single municipal service that controls the entire physical infrastructure and rents out access to ISPs . Incumbent ISPs just have too much of an incentive to behave like turds.

 

[lwdj905]

My guess is that the dissenting council member had to call a cab to get home, his wife lost her cushy no-show job, and the kids aren't going to private school anymore?

 

[Red Foreman]

"We don't allow private corporations to own roads and charge tolls for passage across them."

Sure we do. Just Google 'private toll roads'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_h ... ted_States

 

[wagnerrp]

photochemsyn[/url]":1bf2ux3n]We don't allow private corporations to own roads and charge tolls for passage across them

Actually, we do.

 

[crazydee]

photochemsyn[/url]":2kose32v]The problem is seen in the phrase "carrying coals to Newcastle" - in old England, certain coal interests owned private roads, preventing other suppliers of coal from using them, thus controlling prices.

That's not the meaning of the phrase. Think more "shipping corn to Kansas" or "potatoes to Idaho".

 

[Coriolanus]

You know what I'm always amazed by? Cable internet providers will insist up and down that they can't provide gigabit internet to their customers at affordable prices, but within a few weeks of Google Fiber showing up, they'll start offering it at competitive prices.

 

[vf-xx]

photochemsyn[/url]":135u44sw]

We don't allow private corporations to own roads and charge tolls for passage across them;...

Yes we do. http://www.nbcdfw.com/traffic/stories/S ... 18611.html

 

[d4Njv]

Glad that Google is bringing a gun to a gunfight. There does seem to be no way around politicking.

 

[Llampshade]

THavoc[/url]":3aj0y2ol]

AT&T and Comcast both expressed disappointment in last night's vote.

I have a few choice words for how much I don't care about how you feel.

They are not kid friendly, so I will refrain.

I will just say this: Quit trying to impede competition.

One thing that is very clear here is that the only room for doubt about whether AT&T and Comcast are colluding to limit competition is in the minds of those who steadfastly refuse to accept any version of the truth. I'm sure that the protectionist efforts of the established telecommunications industry will use words that fit the generally accepted definition of "kid friendly" while simultaneously insulting the intelligence of anyone who cares to listen. One sad part about this will be the large number of people who listen and do not understand the insult.

 

[X-AxSys]

The problem is seen in the phrase "carrying coals to Newcastle" - in old England, certain coal interests owned private roads, preventing other suppliers of coal from using them, thus controlling prices. That's what fiber optic and electrical grid owners are doing today.

Actually its the wrong usage... Hauling Coals to Newcastle, England was notional of the fact that NewCastle was a major coal production area at one time and that hauling coal to Newcastle was a wasted/unnecessary effort. There may or may not have been private roads leading to Newcastle (someone from the area can speak to that I'm sure). Certainly prices were controlled by private interests and most likely they made it difficult for non dominant suppliers to produce cost effectively so your analogy partially holds up here.

 

[JerryLove]

The problem is that a single company (ATT) controls access to the public easement (the poles); and that said company has economic interest in influencing the fair use of said easement (keep competitors off).

Since running multiple sets of poles is not acceptable: you need either to open access to everyone, or to put control in the hands of either the government itself or a private corporation(s) that do not have the conflict of interests.

 

[Sixclaws]

Perhaps AT&T and Comcast should give a monetary incentive to the unions to make things difficult for Google's employees. You know what I'm sayin'?

 

[polycyclicAnthrocene]

We don't allow private corporations to own roads and charge tolls for passage across them; we don't have multiple competing water pipe systems in cities and towns; likewise, we need to realize that access to high-speed internet (and electricity grids) is key to the economic success of hundreds of free-market participants.

The problem is seen in the phrase "carrying coals to Newcastle" - in old England, certain coal interests owned private roads, preventing other suppliers of coal from using them, thus controlling prices. That's what fiber optic and electrical grid owners are doing today.

This isn't entirely true for roads in the US. For example, the Northern Virginia area has the so-called HOT lanes. They were mostly privately funded and while I suppose technically the state still owns them, the corporation that provided the majority of the funding (Transurban I believe) retains rights to charge tolls for 80 years.

The tolls vary according to traffic density so more cars on the road leads to higher tolls. If you don't want to use the toll express lane, you can take the regular expressway and deal with traffic jams when it's busy.

 

[Rrr7]

JerryLove[/url]":1aigg27i]The problem is that a single company (ATT) controls access to the public easement (the poles); and that said company has economic interest in influencing the fair use of said easement (keep competitors off).

Since running multiple sets of poles is not acceptable: you need either to open access to everyone, or to put control in the hands of either the government itself or a private corporation(s) that do not have the conflict of interests.

They are not at&t's poles, most poles are owned by the power company, telecom/cable lease pole access from them.

 

[v3rlon]

While it is probably true that some number of google fiber contractors took shortcuts with established codes/regulations, is that number a statistically significant higher percentage than the AT&T or Comcast contractors? I mean, are they even really different groups? If you browse the classifieds in Nashville, is there some separate tier for AT&T grade installers? Is it their position that they hire better people by paying more (if so, please prove)?
When crappy contractor gets let go from company A, she or he doesn't suddenly decide to go to chef school. They apply as the same kind of contractor at company B. We already established they were lazy, and chef school is extra work.

 

[Death_wish01]

jonah[/url]":ddu5x8es]As irredeemably evil and awful as AT&T and Comcast are (very), I do think there should be some accommodation made by Google Fiber to ensure that its crews don't disrupt other people's wires. They sure as hell don't need to force a foot-dragging AT&T crew to come out and reluctantly move wires (that is maybe the most inefficient thing ever), but there has to be a win-win solution here.

you make it sound like that their shill is an actual concern.

 

[tripodal]

siliconaddict[/url]":ywux68qp]

AT&T and Comcast both expressed disappointment in last night's vote.

I would pay good money for the bottled tears of ATT and Shitcast's execs. But that requires these assholes to have human emotions to cry.

They will cry when you take their monopoly away.

 

[Tonkaman]

photochemsyn[/url]":ijwf03y0]
We don't allow private corporations to own roads and charge tolls for passage across them

Might I point you to the Indiana Toll Road as a counter example.

 

[Rrr7]

v3rlon[/url]":2nouakmw]While it is probably true that some number of google fiber contractors took shortcuts with established codes/regulations, is that number a statistically significant higher percentage than the AT&T or Comcast contractors? I mean, are they even really different groups? If you browse the classifieds in Nashville, is there some separate tier for AT&T grade installers? Is it their position that they hire better people by paying more (if so, please prove)?
When crappy contractor gets let go from company A, she or he doesn't suddenly decide to go to chef school. They apply as the same kind of contractor at company B. We already established they were lazy, and chef school is extra work.

At&t usually uses their own unionized employees for outside plant maintenance & installation, while Comcast usually uses 3rd party contractors because it's much cheaper and they only have a very small fraction of unionized employees in very few locations (and even there, they pay non-union employees a bit more so they are discouraged to join the union).
I'm not sure how Google does it, but guessing from their small workforce (a few hundreds total, IIRC) they might use contractors.
Moving line attachments up or down a few inches on poles is not rocket science anyway, unless of course the contractors are lazy and paid by the pole, instead of hourly like an employee would be.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Pitabred[/url]":263s2qum]

The win-win solution is the single-touch plan. If you need cable, you do it all, and if you screw it up, you get to fix it. That's why those linemen are licensed and regulated, and you require that you use competent contractors. That's about all it takes.

In the Louisville case, AT&T appears to be primarily complaining about lack of notice and timelines, not that 'their' linemen have to do it. If that's true here too (I couldn't find the actual ATT complaint), Google just has to announce their install schedule 60 day ahead of time.

That said, I don't think "licensed and regulated" linemen solves the issue. Something company1 might consider completely reasonable ("only 120 minutes of downtime!"), company2 might consider horrible ("omg, we have service guarantees!").

 

[Mathew Binkley]

I was at last night's meeting. Several candidates mentioned that they had received thousands of emails, phone calls, and letters in support of OTMR. So if/when AT&T throws a similar temper tantrum in your city, remember that talking to your representative *does* pay off. Don't let AT&T bully you.

 

[panchito401]

Is eminent domain allowed to be used to just take control of the poles for the common good?

This might be the only instance i've heard of recently where the use of eminent domain could be justified.

 

[gmerrick]

photochemsyn[/url]":18skq5tu]We need to start thinking of fiber optic cable and copper electrical grids the same way we think of water pipes and roadways - a necessary service that all should have access to - it's not a competitive market system, and never could be.

We don't allow private corporations to own roads and charge tolls for passage across them; we don't have multiple competing water pipe systems in cities and towns; likewise, we need to realize that access to high-speed internet (and electricity grids) is key to the economic success of hundreds of free-market participants.

The problem is seen in the phrase "carrying coals to Newcastle" - in old England, certain coal interests owned private roads, preventing other suppliers of coal from using them, thus controlling prices. That's what fiber optic and electrical grid owners are doing today.

This would be municipal fiber loops going to "public" demarcation buildings where end user buildout is done by the ISP back to that building.

 

[IThinkICan]

photochemsyn[/url]":3os1a0ux]We need to start thinking of fiber optic cable and copper electrical grids the same way we think of water pipes and roadways - a necessary service that all should have access to - it's not a competitive market system, and never could be.

We don't allow private corporations to own roads and charge tolls for passage across them; we don't have multiple competing water pipe systems in cities and towns; likewise, we need to realize that access to high-speed internet (and electricity grids) is key to the economic success of hundreds of free-market participants.

The problem is seen in the phrase "carrying coals to Newcastle" - in old England, certain coal interests owned private roads, preventing other suppliers of coal from using them, thus controlling prices. That's what fiber optic and electrical grid owners are doing today.

While I agree with your sentiment you are incorrect about private toll roads in the U.S. According to wikipedia there are several states that have private toll roads. The key difference they cannot or do not discriminate as to who can use them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_h ... ted_States

From 2006, there was talk about selling off the Pennsylvania Turnpike, AFAIK that hasn't happen.

2006 news to privatize the PA Turnpike:

http://www.timesonline.com/privatize-th ... 15877.html

 

[jonah]

Akemi[/url]":wlbh2hzj]

jonah[/url]":wlbh2hzj]As irredeemably evil and awful as AT&T and Comcast are (very), I do think there should be some accommodation made by Google Fiber to ensure that its crews don't disrupt other people's wires. They sure as hell don't need to force a foot-dragging AT&T crew to come out and reluctantly move wires (that is maybe the most inefficient thing ever), but there has to be a win-win solution here.

Yes, it's called nationalize the infrastructure or force line-sharing so we don't need twenty different redundant wired networks to have 20 competitors. It's far more reasonable to have cities/states manage the infrastructure just like roadways than it is to keep that insane barrier to entry up for something as critical as Internet access. Overnight you'd see massive increases in competition in every area including those remote rural locations the big boys aren't interested in serving.

But all ATT/Comcast have to do is play the"that's socialism herp-derp" card and dimbulb's everywhere will follow right along with the chants about how they don't want the socialism.

Totally with you. Fiber internet lines == water pipes in my eyes.

The cable/telephone companies put their lines in decades ago. They've pretty much let them rot since, only doing the bare minimum of maintenance as required. All this after massive government subsidies and tax breaks largely paid for the installation in the first place.

Time to end the enforced monopolies and just sensibly regulate internet service provider lines.

 

[hammr25]

"But all ATT/Comcast have to do is play the"that's socialism herp-derp" card and dimbulb's everywhere will follow right along with the chants about how they don't want the socialism.

They don't even have to do that. All they have to do is buy off politicians.

 

[john-whorfin]

panchito401[/url]":1xk8266z]Is eminent domain allowed to be used to just take control of the poles for the common good?

This might be the only instance i've heard of recently where the use of eminent domain could be justified.

It would be, if the state did not already own the poles.

 

[photochemsyn]

crazydee[/url]":karhpstw]

photochemsyn[/url]":karhpstw]The problem is seen in the phrase "carrying coals to Newcastle" - in old England, certain coal interests owned private roads, preventing other suppliers of coal from using them, thus controlling prices.

That's not the meaning of the phrase. Think more "shipping corn to Kansas" or "potatoes to Idaho".

That's the colloquial usage, but the underlying story is that if you carried coal to Newcastle, you'd be out of luck, since the coal monopoly would never allow you to sell it to anyone:

From 1530, a royal act restricted all shipments of coal from Tyneside to Newcastle Quayside, giving a monopoly in the coal trade to a cartel of Newcastle burgesses known as the Hostmen.

As far as "private roads", see this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-mirage-of-free-market-roads/255167/

The vast majority of "private" roads, around the world and throughout history, came into existence thanks to direct government assistance.

That's also true for electrical grids and fiber-optic networks, isn't it?

 

[oconnect]

Sub standard ISP suing the city to not allow a real high speed provider just exposes AT&T for what they are, a horrible rotten company with shit service. Doing everything they can to prevent fiber to residents makes a company with a long history of garbage customer service look even worse. I hope they loose their petty lawsuit. What a joke!

 

[Fatesrider]

jonah[/url]":2rwkjn0e]As irredeemably evil and awful as AT&T and Comcast are (very), I do think there should be some accommodation made by Google Fiber to ensure that its crews don't disrupt other people's wires. They sure as hell don't need to force a foot-dragging AT&T crew to come out and reluctantly move wires (that is maybe the most inefficient thing ever), but there has to be a win-win solution here.

Actual thinking would suggest that the city simply seize the poles under eminent domain (it being in the public interest to do so) and take over the responsibilities of ownership.

It might take a bond measure to facilitate that, but letting what are going to be utility companies keep other utility companies from using the same resources out of spite rather than simply asking for reasonable access fees and enjoying lower costs for putting the poles in to begin with, then it serves them right for being competition bullies.

It's not so much forcing companies to play nice as it is taking away their ability to NOT play nice.