3 ms·

I only read the article, not the brief, but it sounds like they're objecting to Google touching the pole at all (AT&T's property) without working with AT&T.. i

by jbooth 11y ago

I only read the article, not the brief, but it sounds like they're objecting to Google touching the pole at all (AT&T's property) without working with AT&T.. if it were a matter of moving around AT&T's actual equipment, I'd be with you, if it's a matter of touching the pole, and AT&T has some long dragged out process of 'notification and consent', I can see why Google wants that ability. RE: Build out requirements, funny story since I was at the table for one of these contracts once. We took it as granted that we'd keep the buildout requirement intact but if I analyze the politics of it.. tell someone they can't have cable and you have a guaranteed vote against you, but give EVERYONE a $5 higher bill and nobody will know to blame you.

rayiner 11y ago
AT&T is challenging the municipal ordinance. That ordinance allows a new attacher (Google) to "relocate or alter the attachments or facilities of any Pre-Existing Third Party User as may be necessary to accommodate Attacher's Attachment[.]" The new attacher must only provide 30-days notice if it determines that the work will cause or reasonably be expected to cause an outage. The existing process is prescribed by federal law. 47 C.F.R. 1.1420. Under that process, when an attachment is requested by a new attacher, the utility pole owner (usually the power company), must give everyone else using the pole notice of the new attachment and specify a date for competing the necessary make-ready work that is within 60 days of the notice. That gives the existing attacher the opportunity to modify its attachment to accommodate the new one so that the utility or the new attacher does not need to move its equipment. Under the federal regulations, for the poles AT&T doesn't own, they don't even need to consent. They're just given the opportunity to move their equipment before someone else handles it.

by jbooth 11y ago

rayiner 11y ago

AT&T is challenging the municipal ordinance. That ordinance allows a new attacher (Google) to "relocate or alter the attachments or facilities of any Pre-Existing Third Party User as may be necessary to accommodate Attacher's Attachment[.]" The new attacher must only provide 30-days notice if it determines that the work will cause or reasonably be expected to cause an outage. The existing process is prescribed by federal law. 47 C.F.R. 1.1420. Under that process, when an attachment is requested by a new attacher, the utility pole owner (usually the power company), must give everyone else using the pole notice of the new attachment and specify a date for competing the necessary make-ready work that is within 60 days of the notice. That gives the existing attacher the opportunity to modify its attachment to accommodate the new one so that the utility or the new attacher does not need to move its equipment. Under the federal regulations, for the poles AT&T doesn't own, they don't even need to consent. They're just given the opportunity to move their equipment before someone else handles it.