

mixdup

join:2003-06-28

Atlanta, GA 12.8 1.0

mixdup Member ? Doesn't the FCC have pole-sharing regulations, and many states/cities/FCC/other jurisdictions force power companies to share their poles and also regulate the rates? What about cable companies in Austin? Do they not have the same rights to AT&T poles as Google? Seems like they could/should all be following the same rules. Don't tell me there are separate Time Warner poles, AT&T poles, and electrical poles in Austin



Simba7

I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24

Fromberg, MT 18.2 1.6

4 recommendations Simba7 Member Re: ? said by mixdup: Seems like they could/should all be following the same rules. EVER followed the rules, besides their own? When has at&tfollowed the rules, besides their own?



chip89

Premium Member

join:2012-07-05

Columbia Station, OH chip89 Premium Member Re: ? That whould be Never for AT&T!

WhatNow

Premium Member

join:2009-05-06

Charlotte, NC WhatNow to Simba7

Premium Member to Simba7

There is more then just attaching another cable to the poles. One question is Google going to maintain their cable placement. Are they going to act like TWC and when their cable needs to be transferred because a pole is replaced everybody sits around for months waiting for TWC to do their transfer so the job can be completed. I have seen AT&T give up and do the transfer for free. Which is what TWC wants to happen.

I have read Google has found building a network in KC from scratch is harder then they expected. Google got an exemption to place their cable closer to the power then any other company.



If Google takes a space on a pole it on longer available to anyone else. AT&T could find they no longer have a place on their own poles for their own fiber on their own pole.



What really needs to happen here is one company (this would be best if it was a 3rd party) would place and own the fiber and lease the single fibers to any content provider. That way the poles would look cleaner because they only have power and the fiber cable. This should be easier since Austin owns 80% of the poles. Is Google getting a better deal then AT&T or the cable company?



jluthman

@inxnet.net jluthman to Simba7

Anon to Simba7

"but only if users are willing to have all of their web behavior monitored with deep packet inspection."



What a terrible non objective choice of words. When readers see this, the first thing that comes to mind is that their traffic is being watched by some agent at the NSA. That is not what DPI does. It simply helps shape the data so the links aren't consumed by a few ruining the experience for the many.

Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01

Duluth, MN Chubbysumo Member Re: ? actually, it says outright that they will do behavioral monitoring and DPI, along with injected ads and targeted ads based on your web history(which they say they may collect). It is actual monitoring, which may or may not be legal.



Koreni

@trombare.be Koreni to Simba7

Anon to Simba7

So ATT invest billions in infrastructure and now they have to let a competitor swoop in and have right of way? I don't care for corporations but it seems the consumers are the whiners in this case!

davidhoffman

Premium Member

join:2009-11-19

Warner Robins, GA davidhoffman Premium Member Re: ? The AT&T poles are in the city's right of way, not on AT&T owned property. This is an interesting piece of proposed regulation as it changes the assumptions one might have made about who gets to dictate what one must comply with when one uses a city owned right of way.



megarock

join:2001-06-28

Fenton, MO megarock to Simba7

Member to Simba7

Strange approach considering how hard AT & T is trying to lobby so it can ditch it's copper ant POTS lines yet cries when someone else comes in to put lines up instead of throwing them away.



F*** AT & T.



tigerpaw509

join:2011-01-19 tigerpaw509 to Simba7

Member to Simba7

This is a little misleading.Citys owning telephone poles?Not in Illinois and if they did Att would have no say as they would be a tenant on the pole not owner.My guess for Illinois is that 95% of the poles are power poles.Power wires are always on top(Totem pole effect)and telco's attach next(paying the power company for 1/2 the pole.Next comes Cable tv which also has to buy into the pole.



Telephone pole has become a generic term so if you see a pole with electric and telepone and catv its really a power pole.



Att being afraid of Google?it's more like att would love Google to take over landlines(another generic term) to help booster there exit to 100% wireless.

WhatNow

Premium Member

join:2009-05-06

Charlotte, NC WhatNow Premium Member Re: ? If the poles are owned by the power and telco in many areas they try for each to have half the number of poles that were joint use.. At the end of the year they write a check for the difference. That plan worked much better before buried cable when all cables were on poles or in manhole runs.

dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21

Crystal Lake, IL dfxmatt to mixdup

Member to mixdup

Here's the thing.



Google more than likely is technically a telecom company, after the Provo, Utah situation.



tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA 1 edit 1 recommendation tshirt Premium Member Re: ? said by dfxmatt: Google more than likely is technically a telecom company...

AND registered in each city and state as a telecom, following the same rules/paying the same fees as other telcos/cablecos. Not their primary business, perhaps if they spun off the fiber/access part and it had to stand alone (even if wholly owned) for financing and operations.AND registered in each city and state as a telecom, following the same rules/paying the same fees as other telcos/cablecos.

dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21

Crystal Lake, IL dfxmatt Member Re: ? There is no such requirement that it has to be their primary business - and they do indeed follow the same rules and regulations AND work them out city to city, that was a requirement for them to pick up what they did and do.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband to dfxmatt

Member to dfxmatt

But are they a licensed telecom in Texas???

dfxmatt

join:2007-08-21

Crystal Lake, IL dfxmatt Member Re: ? Is there even such a requirement in Texas? Don't play the "prove a negative" trolling.



fg8578

join:2009-04-26

San Antonio, TX fg8578 to dfxmatt

Member to dfxmatt

On the contrary, google is doing everything in their power to NOT be classified as a telecom company.



Simba7

I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24

Fromberg, MT 18.2 1.6

Simba7 Member Re: ? said by fg8578: On the contrary, google is doing everything in their power to NOT be classified as a telecom company. So are cable companies.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband to mixdup

Member to mixdup

It depends on the states and the company that owns the poles. In many states the company has to be a CLEC to attach fiber to the poles or pay even more than a CLEC or Power company.



The FCC only has guidelines in place when states do not. But I believe those require the company to be a CLEC as well if they are not a power company.

your moderator at work hidden : Off topic



Duramax08

To The Moon

Premium Member

join:2008-08-03

San Antonio, TX Duramax08 Premium Member AT&T, HA! Grow up AT&T, quit acting like a little bitch that you really are. "Well they aren't an ISP so we dont have to give them access!". Really? Quit relying on copper and make the jump to fiber if you still want to stay relevant. Go big or go home.

pandora

Premium Member

join:2001-06-01

Outland pandora Premium Member Re: AT&T, HA! Without the wealth Google has, it couldn't fight an ILEC and prevail. Kudos to Google for showing a path others may eventually follow.



buzz_4_20

join:2003-09-20

Biddeford, ME buzz_4_20 Member As I Have it understood. If AT&T owns the poles they would be charging Google monthly for the use of those poles.

The rates are set elsewhere, but hey revenue is revenue isn't it?

toejam15

join:2013-06-14

San Jose, CA toejam15 Member Re: As I Have it understood. Sure, but its not as profitable as having no competition!

bugabuga

join:2004-06-10

Austin, TX bugabuga to buzz_4_20

Member to buzz_4_20

I believe rates are set for telecom companies. Hence they don't want to let Google use their poles at those rates (and hope to probably charge them 10X if not deny the right outright)



Polevault

@smithville.net Polevault to buzz_4_20

Anon to buzz_4_20

Maybe they'll take their poles and go home



battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 1 recommendation battleop Member Is Google a CLEC in Texas? Maybe someone else already knows this answer. If they are not a CLEC in the State of Texas then AT&T has a legitimate complaint here. IF they are forced to let Google use their poles without being a CLEC then it opens the door for anyone else to demand access as well.

cramer

Premium Member

join:2007-04-10

Raleigh, NC cramer Premium Member Re: Is Google a CLEC in Texas? It it, at best, a lame paperwork technicality. They are a competitor to AT&T, for video and internet. As Google isn't a phone provider (the "LEC" part... Local Exchange Carrier), I don't see them getting a "CLEC" badge in TX.

openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 Premium Member Re: Is Google a CLEC in Texas? said by cramer: It it, at best, a lame paperwork technicality. Lame paperwork technicality that other companies must satisfy? So rules and regulations shouldn't apply to Google and/or startups, only to the ILECs?



battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 battleop to cramer

Member to cramer

"Google isn't a phone provider"



Yes they are. It's trivial for someone Google's size to become a CLec. Why should Google get special treatment?

cramer

Premium Member

join:2007-04-10

Raleigh, NC Westell 6100

Cisco PIX 501

cramer Premium Member Re: Is Google a CLEC in Texas? Google Voice is not "telephone company". I didn't say they couldn't file whatever paperwork necessary where necessary. However, they aren't a "LEC" -- you've have far more traction raising the "cable company" flag, as their fiber deployments do provide cable TV.



battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 battleop Member Re: Is Google a CLEC in Texas? It most certainly is. If you are connecting callers to the PSTN you are a phone company.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband to battleop

Member to battleop

Right! And to be a full CLEC one must register with the FCC as well and the USAC under both USAC and FCC Rules of Telecom operators.

bgoodbody

Bill G

join:2002-05-08

North Truro, MA bgoodbody Member What about other cable companies? Doesn't Austin have other cable companies that use the AT&T poles?



Are they CLEC's, but cable is not subject to the same coverage rules as the old line telcos (at least in Mass.)

cramer

Premium Member

join:2007-04-10

Raleigh, NC cramer Premium Member Re: What about other cable companies? They provide phone service, so yes. Also, they'd be included under other franchise protections.

Bengie25

join:2010-04-22

Wisconsin Rapids, WI Bengie25 Member Poles? What's a telecom pole? All poles around here are for power. If there's no power poles, telecom is in the ground.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19

Austin, TX iansltx Member Re: Poles? We have some aerial telephone plant around here, with poles owned by AT&T.

davidhoffman

Premium Member

join:2009-11-19

Warner Robins, GA davidhoffman to Bengie25

Premium Member to Bengie25

Here in central Georgia, almost everything is on the poles. Underground is used for new developments.

CJ777

join:2004-10-05

Los Angeles, CA CJ777 Member Ohhh too bad AT&T... STFU!



n2jtx

join:2001-01-13

Glen Head, NY 1 recommendation n2jtx Member Private Property? Are the AT&T poles private property AND do they pay property taxes on them. If AT&T is paying property tax as utilities do here in New York then unfortunately as much as I dislike AT&T I would have to side with them. In my area, utility poles are owned by either the power company or the telephone company. They have a mutually agreed sharing plan but the cable company pays rent to use the polls. Of course they could have refused to allow cable to use the polls but back when they were first connected, cable did not compete with the phone company.



michieru

Premium Member

join:2009-07-25

Denver, CO michieru Premium Member No.



Google is no different here. One goes to NSA the other to Google which can later sell to NSA for profit. They didn't want them to get a free lunch so they encrypted their product.



...Anyway, the current law benefits AT&T but I do expect the city of Austin or Google to find a work around towards the problem. This also means that 80% should be a go ahead even if the other 20% does not get served right now because of legal issues. That crying child get's me laughing every time. "but only if they're willing to have all of their web behavior monitored with deep packet inspection."Google is no different here. One goes to NSA the other to Google which can later sell to NSA for profit. They didn't want them to get a free lunch so they encrypted their product....Anyway, the current law benefits AT&T but I do expect the city of Austin or Google to find a work around towards the problem. This also means that 80% should be a go ahead even if the other 20% does not get served right now because of legal issues. That crying child get's me laughing every time.



Trimline

Premium Member

join:2004-10-24

Windermere, FL 114.5 12.1

1 recommendation Trimline Premium Member Re: No. said by michieru: That crying child get's me laughing every time. Me too!

elray

join:2000-12-16

Santa Monica, CA 1 recommendation elray Member Not the first time Recall that Google also pulled this in KC, wanting to place its fiber on the power poles, without paying for the appropriately trained personnel to do it safely.



It is reasonable to regulate placement of a second or third attachment space, including that on AT&T-owned poles in Austin. But given the very finite number of spaces, the regulating body must rigorously scrutinize whomever they will award those rights to, and hold them accountable for their installations.



Despite their corporate largess, and their ability to pay, Google isn't necessarily employing the highest standards, nor do they have much experience as a utility, so the city needs to be cautious in their enthusiasm to grant them special rights.



One wonders if the people of Austin consented to the terms that Overland Park actually read and rejected.



SpottedCat

join:2004-06-27

Miami, FL SpottedCat Member Competition?? OH NOS! AT&T might have to actually COMPETE! Perish the thought!



If they're so afraid of Google Fiber they're free to run their own fiber and provide competitive service.

Taget

join:2004-07-29 Taget Member Anyone remember RCN? They had the audacity of trying to compete against cable companies and trying to deploy their own cables. Then after lobbying from the big cable companies basically every state swatted them down to the point they stopped trying?



Difference is Google has real money and can buy their own people.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: Anyone remember RCN? Not if the state requires them to be a CLEC to attach to the poles. And AT&T has already paid for those people. They don't bother with the locals, they go to the states and feds and can put a huge stop into Google that would require them to be a CLEC which paper work on all levels and EVERY state that they want service in; let alone in each city.



morbo

Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22

00000 morbo Member Poll Position AT&T wants to return to this mess.



alchav

join:2002-05-17

Saint George, UT alchav Member Re: Poll Position Exactly, Fiber is the future it should not be on a Poll. If you live in an old city or neighborhood that has Polls and you want Fiber, think about moving out to some place new that has everything underground.

tmc8080

join:2004-04-24

Brooklyn, NY tmc8080 to morbo

Member to morbo

Actually, the FIRST concerns over wiring came when there were SEVERAL companies providing ELECTRICITY (late 1800s and as late as the 1930s) on wires strewn all about-- each with it's own proprietary voltage/wattage. This became a health and safety issue which brought about the regional & national monopolies and duopolies we see today-- not just in gas, oil & electricity, but telecom and other industry as well.



AT&T is a hold-over from the MA-Bell era as are 99% of the BIG RBOCS left.

jorcmg

join:2002-10-24

USA jorcmg Member Oh no! GOOG having ROW troubles in the 4th largest city in Texas! Stop the presses!



Unless GOOG aggressively expands this whole deal is a charade. The publicity surrounding virtually nothing is ridiculous.



WHT

join:2010-03-26

Rosston, TX WHT Member Pole Attachment Rights I find it hard to believe any city owns any significant number of utility poles, it's almost always the electric company that owns them.



I need to look over the April 7, 2011 FCC Report and Order on Pole Attachments as this is relevant to me where my footprint is extensively covered by a rural investor-wned electric co-op.



A new twist is that it includes investor-owned utility poles, i.e an electric co-op (which were previous exempt from an obligation to provide pole attachments), and it no longer requires public utility status, i.e. wireless broadband providers that are not registered as a public utility now able to have access to poles.



Therefore, AT&T owned poles (as well as any pole that provides a public utility, regardless who owns the poles) can have Google fiber attached to them.



linicx

Caveat Emptor

Premium Member

join:2002-12-03

United State linicx Premium Member Austin Austin is large enough and wealthy enough to build its own Internet and phone bundle in the city. It does not need AT&T or any other company to explain it. Austin has an amply supply of experienced engineers. If they don't I know one in Richardson who can design it and build it.



Telephone companies want to walk on both sides of the street by pretending to be a wireless company without oversight on one side, while claiming to be a telephone company with oversight on the other. The telephone pole is just one example.



The real prize is decided by the side that does the best job of pretending it was really a non-issue after all.

DarkSithPro (banned)

join:2005-02-12

Tempe, AZ 1 recommendation DarkSithPro (banned) Member I think it's a little unfair to make it fair If ATT installed the poles then why should they have to share? It's their investment. So you build a factory and you have to let your competition use half the factory you built? Makes no sense.



dead id fre

@sbcglobal.net dead id fre Anon Re: I think it's a little unfair to make it fair FCC says they have to share, which they appear to be willing to if Google has a cable agreement with Austin - same rules AT&T had to play by.



oimikey

@virginm.net oimikey Anon lol as i see it AT&T either grow up and play ball and accept google's money, or a company as big and as rich as google will push ahead without them. either way, AT&T are screwed and they know it, hence the whinging.



LightSpan

Premium Member

join:2004-02-18

Lexington, KY LightSpan Premium Member pole rights If att shares with other utilities, there is a pole hight reqirement. Telco has to be 48 inches away from electrical.Att poles are a spec 5/35 class pole and will have a pole tag on it, if a bigger pole is needed by electric utility,They will let telco know.Most electrical company's have a slanted top to there poles.Telco is flat.Most telco cable heightover roads is 15.8 inches.So the amount of cable space is limited without lashing to existing cable and strand.Space is premium, and most cities wont let you place pole routes any more.So why give your last mile space on a pole route to a clec.