AT&T and Comcast Helped Elected Official Write Plan To Stall Google Fiber (arstechnica.com) 84
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: As the Nashville Metro Council prepares for a final vote to give Google Fiber faster access to utility poles, one council member is sponsoring an alternative plan that comes from ATT and Comcast. The council has tentatively approved a One Touch Make Ready (OTMR) ordinance that would let a single company -- Google Fiber in this case -- make all of the necessary wire adjustments on utility poles itself. Ordinarily, Google Fiber must wait for incumbent providers like ATT and Comcast to send construction crews to move their own wires, requiring multiple visits and delaying Google Fiber's broadband deployment. The pro-Google Fiber ordinance was approved in a 32-7 preliminary vote, but one of the dissenters asked ATT and Comcast to put forth a competing proposal before a final vote is taken. The new proposal from council member Sheri Weiner "call[s] for Google, ATT, Comcast and Nashville Electric Service to create a system that improves the current process for making utility poles ready for new cables," The Tennessean reported last week. "Weiner said ATT and Comcast helped draft the resolution she proposes." Weiner told Ars that she asked ATT and Comcast to propose a resolution. "I told them that I would file a resolution if they had something that made sense and wasn't as drastic as OTMR," Weiner told Ars in an e-mail today, when we asked her what role ATT and Comcast played in drafting the resolution. Weiner said she is insisting on some changes to the resolution, but the proposal (full text) was submitted without those changes. When asked why she didn't put her suggested changes in the version of the resolution published on the council website, Weiner said, "I had them [ATT and Comcast] submit it for me as I was out of town all last week on business (my day job)." Weiner said an edited resolution will be considered by the council during its next meeting. Weiner's plan could stall the OTMR ordinance and -- though it might improve Google Fiber's current situation -- would not provide the quick access to poles sought by Google Fiber and most council members. However, Weiner said she is willing to support OTMR later on if her proposal doesn't result in significant improvements.
Criminal behavior (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Criminal behavior (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong.
The actual text of the bill says:
Upon approval of an Attachment Application by an Owner, Pre-Existing Third Party Users shall allow an Attacher, using Preapproved Contractors and at the Attacherâ(TM)s expense, to perform Make Ready by transferring, relocating, rearranging, or altering the Attachments of any Pre-Existing Third Party User to the extent necessary or appropriate to accommodate the Attacherâ(TM)s Attachment.
The law is pro-competition, not just pro-Google. Any company that wants to enter the market gets the exact same benefit. Google is mentioned in the summary only because they're the company trying to enter the market right now.
Imagine how it would work (Score:4, Interesting)
Comcast would claim they can't move *their* wire until ATnT move theirs under this bill, because ATnT run the same poles.
ATnT would claim Comcast needs to move their wire first under this bill, as ATnT cannot move Comcasts wire out of the way as they move ATnTs.
So they'd be at (fake) standoff, wherever more than one provider has wires running.
They could delay rollout of competitors for years or even decades with tricks like this.
Re: (Score:2)
and they do, do this....
Worked in the Telco industry, we had $15,000.00 Network General Sniffers at each end of a T1 to prove beyond doubt, that the line was cut and it was the Telco's fault.
They denied it 100% of the time, until you produced logs from both Network General Sniffers and the problem was them and not you...every single time...without fail.
You are 100% correct that they will do this to prevent, thwart or at least slow down competition.
The smart move is for Sheri Weiner to lose her sea
Re: (Score:2)
I had a fiber connection installed to a private school. We bought the connection from a local non-profit that was built for providing fast, affordable Internet connections to schools, libraries, and non profits. The non-profit ISP had a fiber corridor running right down the street at the front of the property that took about two years for them to clear all the red tape for installation. The proverbial "last mile" was about 150 yards of driveway between the street to the school. There were existing utili
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure why we are still attaching wires to poles, when we have horizontal boring equipment that can drill and place conduit underground, and avoid or reduce stupid problems caused by drunk drivers and squirrels.
Yes, I am sure it costs more, but laying fiber / copper in sealed conduit seems like a much better long term plan.
That being said, I am wondering why they aren't just removing the franchise agreements for these companies, and building out their own fiber plant, bringing it back to a COLO that
Re: (Score:2)
Data obtained from Maryland utility
companies indicate that constructions costs for overhead utilities range from $0.62 million per mile to $1.02 million
per mile and underground comparable service ranges from $3.3 million to $8.3 million per mile.
From: http://www.roads.maryland.gov/... [maryland.gov] (pdf)
It is a bit more expensive...
I did find this line pretty funny though:
Underground installations reduce vehicular
crashes with poles and possible fatalities, reduce the exposure to electromagnetism fields reducing health hazards,
improve the aesthetics of neighborhoods and may increase the assessment value of the nearby properties.
Since when did we prove that electromagnetism causes any health hazards, and when did burying somehow start mitigating these issues? Perhaps it is more about perception, but that line is utter crap.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the real reason though: "using Preapproved Contractors and at the Attacher's expense". I can understand the expense being the attacher's but 'pre-approved contractors' sounds like "AT&T/Comcast contractors only"
Re: (Score:2)
Because AT&T and Comcast don't hire dingbats, amirite?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't read anything wrong with what was done personally. Council member engages stakeholders not represented by original proposal to draft alternate resolution.
The question really lies in how the two competing resolutions are reconciled.
This is reality. Everyone wants things the easy way, and it is the city's job in this case to mediate these competing interests.
Re:Criminal behavior (Score:5, Interesting)
The backstory reads as such:
Google wants to roll out fiber, AT&T and Comcast have received several orders in order to move "their" cables, however most have been outstanding for more than 100 days, AT&T and Comcast are causing nuisances by moving each cable individually and requiring (unnecessary) permits/inspections from the city and/or the electrical service for each move. So basically for every pole you have 5-6 trucks passing by (Comcast, NES, AT&T, NES, Google).
Google proposed that 1 contractor can do all that in one visit. However, Comcast/AT&T purchased two city council members who brought up legislation that would just maintain the status quo and charge Google for their 'pre-approved contractors' to do the work, the reasons being claimed that AT&T contractors have full rights to any work on a pole due to 'union contracts' and Comcast thinks it would be fair that they stay in charge of 'maintenance' (charge money for losing customers).
Re: (Score:2)
That is what Google wants us to believe, but it isn't necessarily true. The problem is when something is damaged or incurs latent damage which cannot easily be detected.
Back in the 80's, many cities allowed cable franchises to "clean up" the telephone poles in order to be able to install their cables and amplifiers. Many of them made a mess of it. Best practices are to have consistent leased zones on the poles and clear spacing/buffer requirements. When that isn't your existing condition and service loops
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Google would have a problem if the contractors were truly independent and regulated by the City, you can just give them a contract, they'll hire and train a bunch of people and get the job done. Right now, that's not the way it is nor is it what Comcast or AT&T are proposing. Many business people have proposed similar things all over the world (instead of breaking open the street 3 times, how about you let a third party do it once, you all do your work and we'll close it down again) but th
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the reason companies avoid the joint-trench projects unless they are forced into it is that they cannot control schedule and funding. There is no means to accelerate or decelerate the project once it is given the go-ahead, unless all parties agree. Unless a single party is responsible for the joint-trench and sells capacity back, it is very hard to make it work.
It worked well in the 00's with metro fiber because you literally had four competitors trying to install conduits and manholes at the same
Re: (Score:2)
What is illegal about proposing and drafting legislation and asking a politician to carry it forward?
When you call your councilperson's office and say "People are driving too fast through my neighborhood and putting our kids at risk. Please get the law changed so we can get speed bumps installed on the 300 through 600 blocks of Oak St", what are you doing?
The summary (of course I didn't RTFAs) doesn't suggest bribery or anything of that nature.
Re: (Score:3)
What is wrong with that? Surely you don't expect every politician to, without help, personally draft every word of legislation that they propose? No politician can be an expert on the details of computer security, warfare, welfare, medicine, nuclear power, geology, oil drilling, education, global finance, genetics, food safety, space exploration, micro economics, the penal system, economics of healthcare, religion, etc... Of course they seek the assistance of others in crafting the details.
However, at the e
Re: (Score:2)
What is wrong with that? Surely you don't expect every politician to, without help, personally draft every word of legislation that they propose? No politician can be an expert on the details of computer security, warfare, welfare, medicine, nuclear power, geology, oil drilling, education, global finance, genetics, food safety, space exploration, micro economics, the penal system, economics of healthcare, religion, etc... Of course they seek the assistance of others in crafting the details.
However, at the end of the day, they have to vote for/against legislation and they are accountable to the voters there -- what's the problem?
THIS. I lived in Washington DC for 8 years and, while drafting legislation/regulation was not my job, I worked and was acquainted with many who did. What happened in TFA is what happens at the Federal level and -- surely -- lower levels of Government. One friend of mine worked as a staffer to a Congressman who sat on a forestry committee during the Bush years. The logging industry would give the Congressman's office draft legislation that, with some changes, was submitted in the queue to become law. My frie
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, it isn't even like it is some kind of backroom deal (which does happen sometimes as well). This politician is being entirely above board and open about this. It makes sense that the people with equipment on the poles should be involved, it is just a matter of negotiating a compromise that is the best for all involved.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah yes, the republican's favorite false equivalence.
Sorry but private citizens are not and never will be equivalent to private corporations or vice versa and literally NOTHING you conclude from assuming that can ever be anything but completely wrong.
When citizens try to influence politicians - that's democracy at work and universally a good thing.
When corporations, any corporations, try to do the same thing - that's plutocracy and universally an evil thing.
Re: (Score:2)
And unions? ......?
And Liberal Special interest groups?
And PACs?
And
IF you want ONLY citizens to have access to our representatives, and not any "organized" version of advocacy groups, then lets be fair and make apply all forms of advocacy groups (and I would agree with you).
However, since I rather doubt that you'd object to "citizen advocacy" groups influencing politicians, your choice on which advocacy groups are allowed, and which ones are prohibited is purely arbitrary in nature, based on your political
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So, you believe corporations are person's now? There is such a thing as a corporate death sentence, it just isn't used very often, just as the death sentence isn't used on humans very often.
But, what you typed did not in any way disagree with what the previous poster said. Michael suggested that if you hold corporations to that standard, so should Unions and other citizen groups. He also said that corporations are groups of citizens, which is a fact even if you don't want
Re: (Score:2)
Do the former, and I'll at least consider the latter.
Though there is a good reason why it isn't fair to do that to do that universally - since not all advocacy groups are alike. Some represent the views of all their members, some are top-down hierarchies.
I would limit the capacity to influence policy to groups which are run democratically - by everybody involved. So corporations are out but cooperations are in. Some unions are out and others are in. PACS are mostly out, so are some special interest groups w
Re: (Score:2)
Name a single advocacy group that represents the views of ALL of their members. I can't even say the NRA represents the views of all its members, but I can't imagine what group you are thinking of that does.
Corporations are run democratically. The shareholders are the members, the employees sometimes, but not often get a vote. But that is no different than many organizations. The corporation I work for hands out stock to the employees along with their 401k match, so technically, I have a vote in everyth
Re: (Score:2)
Nice strawman, like the hat.
I specifically defined what the proper criteria for a legitimate advocacy group would be: an anonymous one-man-one-vote democratic agreement on every issue it lobbies for.
I never said the votes had to be unanimous - but at least it must be decided democratically.
>Corporations are run democratically.
Bwahahahahahah.
One share one vote is not democracy - it's the very definition of plutocracy. But I suppose considering the side you take, I shouldn't be surprized that you don't kno
Perhaps all new legislation (Score:1)
Should have to include a statement that the legislator wrote the legislation completely on their own without the assistance of any parties concerned in the legislation.
There should be a stipulation that if they are found to be lying on the in the statement they have to spend 1 year in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
How about they spend one day dead?
Re: (Score:2)
That only works for tax purposes, and only if you're like a galactic megastar like Hotblack Desiato.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't mean to be an ass, but that doesn't make any sense. Do you REALLY want someone who knows nothing about the industry under consideration to be writing laws about that industry? No single person is able to know enough about a subject to be able to effectively legislate it, it has to be a group effort. And chances are, the people that are smart enough about a subject probably works in that industry. If you want to know about telephone poles, and the best way to hang cables from them, are you going t
Re: (Score:2)
Do you REALLY want someone who knows nothing about the industry under consideration to be writing laws about that industry?
Actually, I would prefer that Government stop writing laws to regulate such in this manner at all. The Telephone Poles are granted special rights (right of way) and operate usually in some sort of Franchise or Lease arraignment. As such, it would be easy to write a law that was fair to all parties.
OR
We start boring horizontally and burying the cables in conduit underground. Since we no longer need to hang wires, why not fix the problem right?
Re: (Score:2)
So how do we regulate the horizontal boring? Or do we just let it be a free-for-all, and hope for the best?
Not all regulation is bad regulation. Without regulation you end up with this [haaretz.com].
Did Google help write OTMR (Score:3)
The council has tentatively approved a One Touch Make Ready (OTMR) ordinance that would let a single company -- Google Fiber in this case -- make all of the necessary wire adjustments on utility poles itself
Lobbyists help write legislation all the time. I'd be surprised if Google wasn't in on the original ordinance.
Re: (Score:2)
When George Bush II was challenged about the oil companies writing his energy policies, he said "Ya gotta dance with those what brung ya".
This article explains quite well. [theguardian.com]
Newsflash! Our elected officials are for sale (Score:3)
Don't rush to conclusion (Score:3)
It's easy to bash the incumbents but let's not just hand the keys to the city over to Google just yet.
Re:Don't rush to conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the problem: AT&T and Comcast want make the process of adding new cables to be a painful as possible for outside by using existing regulation. This is known as regulatory capture. It is not in AT&T's or Comcast's best interest to be helpful.
Seriously, this is like asking the owner of a car dealership their opinion on Tesla selling directly to people.
Re: (Score:2)
So long as it is disclosed during the debate before the vote that Plan B is the AT&T/Comcast plan. So long as the vote is not manipulated. So long as discussing Plan B is not, itself, just a stalling tactic. Then there is nothing wrong with Plan B being heard.
Next step: the council votes.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is these delaying tactics will simply shift fibre installs from one location to another. Any business when presented with this tactic of delay will simply resort to starting as many projects as possible, ignore the delayed ones and simply commence the approved ones, looking back at the delayed ones when it is their turn again (they will have a set maximum investment level per period and hence simply shift to alternate locations as priority). So specific regions will suffer as a result of corrupt cor
Re: (Score:2)
And before you know it, you didn't gain any market traction because you can't drum up support for 5 houses/city, and you blew through $10B+ just having contractors "ready and waiting" in 100 cities. It's not zero cost to start the effort in a city, you know?
Re: (Score:2)
You do not there is a massive difference between planning and government approval and doing the actual work. Where delays are expected you only do planning and work through the approvals and delays. Once you when you can start, you then start the prep and not before. If the delay is long enough you redo your plans to suit. Even if you end up with too many approvals, you simply extend that approval over time whilst you delay the start for as many years as necessary. It makes no sense to allow delays to cont
Re: (Score:2)
I make this like painting a house. Painting a house is easy, and quick. The prep work is tedious and takes a long long time.
The problem with Government involvement, it is much of the Prep work. Submitting of plans, approval (and revision) of plans, permits, objections by special interests groups, more revisions, permits expire, newly created permits now needed requiring resubmitting of plans for approval. 18 different government entities all vying for a piece of the action. All for Dick Waving politicians t
Re: (Score:2)
I have worked through many government approvals, just get your information right, hold personal discussions, maintain a good rapport, check with them for any difficulties the application is causing, establish and maintain a good social relationship, use like people for the approval process (people like the people you are communicating with), never rush them but do check regularly to see whether they need any additional information. I always found the prep to be pretty easy and pretty smooth once you establ
Re: (Score:2)
Why the disclosure? If Plan B makes more sense than Plan A, let those voting for Plan B explain why they did so to those they represent or risk recall or losing in the next election.
The source of an idea doesn't make any difference -- the idea is what matters. When code reviewing code for correctness, style, etc, why do you care who wrote it?
This is why peer reviews of articles are ideally blind - the reviewer doesn't know who wrote the paper so the authorship can't influence them, just the technical detail
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to bash the incumbents but let's not just hand the keys to the city over to Google just yet.
Don't think of it as handing the keys to the city over to Google. Rather, see it for what it is - mandating the transfer of the keys from AT&T and Comcast over to Google. And after all, the municipality owns said utility poles, so it's their decision. Besides, as much as I hate and distrust Google, I don't believe they would do anything during their work on the poles to purposely disrupt AT&T or Comcast service. But I can certainly see AT&T and Comcast putting the screws to Google in any way pos
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to bash the incumbents but let's not just hand the keys to the city over to Google just yet.
They're not handing over the keys. OTMR is a normal part of wiring poles. It happens ALL the time. Google is asking for something that Comcast and AT&T themselves use in other areas for the same reasons: OTMR works and everybody wins.
Unless you are an AT&T or Comcast and you don't want a competitor coming in. Then suddenly it becomes a big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Seeking input from impacted parties isn't just convenient for lawmakers, its damn good practice. How it turns out varies.
News Flash (Score:1)
News Flash: Monopolies buy politicians to protect their monopoly! Masses shocked! Film at 11.
Seriously though, this is no surprise. These monopolies have been making money hand over fist for decades on delivering Cable TV or phone service to a captive audience. They now see their internet business slowly cannibalizing their cable TV business (analog cable is already dead here, there is no reason all content cannot be streamed online) or completely eliminating their phone service ($120 for Ooma and never
Re: (Score:1)
" Letting a monopoly write your legislation should be illegal."
.
.
Actually, letting any single entity or individual write your legislation ought to be illegal. Especially if they have a vested interest or a conflict of interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Letting a monopoly write your legislation should be illegal.
Government sanction franchise agreement holder.
Remove the need for Franchise agreements and the problem of "monopoly" goes away.
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming every pole needs work, and that is probably not even close to being correct.
Also, I would add a condition to the T rule, that if they even LOOK at one of their poles, they have to provide mitigation as requested at that time, and that it doesn't count against whatever artificial limit they place (I would increase those too). Meaning that if they are dragging their feet for google, that they have to drag their feet for themselves as well.
Re: (Score:2)
An even more simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Eminent domain all the polls in Nashville.
Create the Nashville Telecommunication Services a city government ran agency/non-profit corporation to handle all maintenance and wiring on the poles.
All companies who wish to use them simply pays 1/#ofproviders of the total maintenance cost for the poles.
So 1 Company pays 100%
2 Companies pays 50%
3 Companies pays 33% etc
The more companies using the poles the cheaper the poles are for each company doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
Err poles not polls, gotta love phone autocorrect..
Re: (Score:2)
If you're gonna do that, you might as well just pull the fiber to each house and end the Franchise agreements to ATT and Comcast. Pull to a COLO facility and offer any / all service providers to provide service to as many customers as they can contract with. Charge a maintenance fee for maintaining poles and fiber as needed based on usage.
End the monopoly at the last mile.
Drastic must have special meaning in Tenn (Score:2)
OTMR is done ALL the time, all over the US and probably in other countries. It's not drastic. It's NORMAL.
You know, a word that means the opposite of drastic. Normal. A word that means, well, normal.
AT&T and Comcast NORMALLY have little to no problem with OTMR except well, in this case, a competitor they don't want is the one who needs to do a lot of OTMR. And then suddenly the thing everybody has done for years is drastic.
Riiiight. Nothing fishy going in here. They just, you know, faxed it over,
Is that the "cover your ass" version? (Score:2)
Because more likely it's "AT&T and Comcast bribed politician to push legislation they want".
Are we surprised? (Score:2)
Interesting priorities for an elected official (Score:2)
So, an elected official is either approached by an AT&T/Comcast lobby group or approaches them, and she then allows that lobby group to submit legislative proposals to the council in her name because (paraphrasing somewhat) "she was too busy doing other stuff to make time to do it herself".
You know, I recall a few British and European politicians doing that over the last 15-20 years. One example, the "Cash for Questions" scandal in the 1990's... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It was labelled Corruptio
take turns? (Score:2)