Google Fiber In Austin Hits a Snag: Incumbent AT&T 291
AcidPenguin9873 writes "Earlier this year, Google announced that it would build its next fiber network in Austin, TX. Construction is slated to start in 2014, but there's a hitch: AT&T owns 20% of the utility poles in Austin. The City of Austin is considering a rules change that would allow Google to pay AT&T to use its utility poles, but AT&T isn't happy about it. The debate appears to hinge on a technicality that specifies what types of companies can attach to the utility poles that AT&T owns. From the news story: 'Google 'would be happy to pay for access (to utility poles) at reasonable rates, just as we did in our initial buildout in Kansas City,' she said, referring to Google Fiber's pilot project in Kansas City...Tracy King, AT&T's vice president for public affairs, said in a written statement that Google "appears to be demanding concessions never provided any other entity before. ... Google has the right to attach to our poles, under federal law, as long as it qualifies as a telecom or cable provider, as they themselves acknowledge. We will work with Google when they become qualified, as we do with all such qualified providers," she said.'"
Re:AT&T? (Score:5, Informative)
The power company (owned by the city) owns 80% of the poles. AT&T owns the remaining 20%, presumably because they needed poles in some locations where there was no power pole.
Re:Why is Google not a telecom? (Score:5, Informative)
I believe it's narrowly defined as telephone service and VOIP doesn't count. According to AT&T spokeperson, Google even agree's they don't fit the requirement as a telecom.
So like I posted below, update the regulation to include any form of communication, or if you want to keep it narrow add ISP's. I don't think even if the fed's don't change it, that AT&T has a leg to stand on. The city owns the right of ways and can change what's allowed within their borders IMO. But IANAL.
Re:Why is Google not a telecom? (Score:5, Informative)
Free market? Gov't gave AT&T the ROW to begin (Score:5, Informative)
The city government gave AT&T the exclusive right of way to put up poles all over everyone's property in the first place.
Under existing federal law, that ROW came under the condition that other "telecommunications providers" can lease space on the poles. The city is really just insisting that AT&T comply with the spirit of the original deal.
So we have an exclusive right granted by government, both federal and city, and now the government (still) attaches strings to that government grant. This doesn't really have anything to do with the free market at all.
Re:Why is Google not a telecom? (Score:5, Informative)
If they are, can't they use the poles under FCC reg? If not, why are they not considered a cable company or telco? Is it because they don't want to follow some regulation that would be required if they have that status?
Pretty much, yes. Good description in the link below. Essentially, Google is an information service provider, regulated under Title 1 of the Telecom Act of 1996. If it were willing to be regulated under Title 2, as a telecom service provider, then it would qualify for pole attachment access guarantees. I fully agree that the language in the 1996 Telecom Act regarding pole access should be broadened to cover Google, but it seems that AT&T has a pretty decent case that it doesn't cover Google, as written. http://www.kandutsch.com/articles/access-to-utility-poles-for-ftth-providers [kandutsch.com]
Re:Why is Google not a telecom? (Score:5, Informative)
I'll google that for everyone else:
Sec. 702. Privacy of customer information.
Re:Bury those cables (Score:5, Informative)
Utility poles are going the way of the dodo in many places in Sweden, even some pretty sparsely populated areas. Buried cables survive harsh weather better, are not as frequently damaged as utility poles are by vehicles etc, so the maintenance costs for the utility companies have gone WAY down, meaning that the long-term costs of trenching are actually lower.
Re:heh, friend, you haven't looked around lately (Score:2, Informative)
The legal costs to stand up a CLEC in most states will definitely be much, much more expensive than "just a few thousand dollars" and there has to be a compelling cost/benefit set of reasons to do it. For Google it makes perfect sense as they are of course already well on their way to be a major owner of global fiber and tele/datacom infrastructure and more (WAY more) than have the economies of scale nationally and internationally to justify teams of in-house lawyers and regulatory junkies who can navigate that world.
Large corporations may also have those resources and can cost-justify CLEC status but even then most don't. I've worked for F500s and you know who they used almost universally for global fiber and MPLS needs? AT&T. They're sold DS3, OC3, OC12, and other SONET circuits riding on MPLS very, very cheaply (like, surprisingly inexpensive). Less than $5k/mo for a gigabit circuit is not unusual, even internationally (Thailand, Singapore, Australia,etc. for States-based F500s).
The late-90s/early-2000s "every dialup ISP is going to be a CLEC" craze is long, long gone. Maintaining that bailiwick proved to be unmanageable for all but a tiny few who have survived the massive shakeout and consolidation of that industry. There is one ISP I know of in California and it's in my area that survived that shake-out and has been quite successful as a CLEC but it's doing it by building out its own infrastructure and actually has gear in COs around the State. Among ISPs it's a tiny handful of those who survived Statewide. There are others of course (Telepacific comes to mind, but they have a truly awful reputation) and I'm sure probably hundreds if not thousands of registered CLECs in the State but how many are truly active? Very, very few.
Are there still fringe CLECs or corporations-cum-CLECs who are "gouging" AT&T out there? Sure, probably. But far from enough for me to cry them a "oh you poor baby AT&T" river.
Re: Google will have their way (Score:4, Informative)