4 ms·

The actual reason, the core of this, has nothing to do with micro-trenching and everything to do with them not being allowed to use the existing network of util

The actual reason, the core of this, has nothing to do with micro-trenching and everything to do with them not being allowed to use the existing network of utility poles due to bigger telco's lobbying the governments against it, and winning. AT&T, Comcast etc were fighting tooth and nail to not allow Google on their poles, which led to google attempting micro-trenching as a proof of concept.

jonathankoren 7y ago
At the same time, I don’t think that if you were truly serious, you’d do your deployment with a completely unproven technique.
StudentStuff 7y ago
Google could have attached to the poles, the city even fought AT&T to let them on the poles without a proper CLEC license: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-government/2017/08/16/judge-throws-out-at-t-suit-against-citys-google-fiber-proposal/573863001/ https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-go... In return, Google did not use said pole attachment rights, damaged roads and left broken infrastructure & promises.
rayiner 7y ago
Incorrect historical revisionism. Google was always allowed to use the utility poles. It lobbied Louisville to get a special law passed that would allow it to not only use the utility poles, but relocate other peoples’ wires to make space on the poles while putting up their own. (Ordinarily, the owner of the lines does the relocation.) AT&T challenged that law in court.[1] The city defended the law at its own expense, and won fairly early in the process (on a motion to dismiss). AT&T did not appeal. That was two years ago. According to the article, Google didn’t even start nano-trenching and signing up people for “fiber hoods” until October 2017, after the lawsuit was already over.[2] [1] AT&T did not challenge Google’s right to use the utility poles, only the law allowing Google contractors to relocate AT&T’s equipment and wires in the process. These laws are probably a good idea on the whole, but given the shoddy work Google’s contractors evidently did with the city’s streets, maybe AT&T’s complaint wasn’t so dumb after all. [2] The whole concept of “fiberhoods” is another concession to Google that other providers do not get. Almost everywhere, franchise agreements require universal coverage of the city, not just build-out in places with demonstrated demand. Moreover, Google wasn’t required to pay for various additional concessions that Charter had to pay in Louisville, like wiring up government buildings and providing public access channels and a studio for government use. Those provisions are routine for cable franchises, but Google Fiber categorically refuses any deal that has them.
- ascagnel_ 7y ago
  re: footnote 1: Google only lobbied for that law because AT&T was acting with malicious compliance -- intentionally doing the work as late as possible, so as to interfere with Google's rollout.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Not true. Google started negotiations with Louisville in 2015. The city passed the ordinance in February 2016 to become more attractive as a Fiber City candidate: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-government/2016/02/11/google-fiber-measure-passed-over-objections/80227296 https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-go... (“Tonight's vote puts Louisville one step closer toward becoming a Google Fiber city.”). Google made the official selection of Louisville as a Fiber City in April 2017, and as of that date had not even applied for any work permits: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/google-fiber-officially-selects-louisville-ky-to-run-its-new-gigabit-play https://www.techrepublic.com/article/google-fiber-officially.... The lawsuit was resolved by August 2017, four months after Google made the official selection and two months before Google started construction. Google was right to lobby for the law—it’s a good law and there is ongoing work to require similar laws at the federal level. But as far as what happened in Louisville it’s a red herring. It was a theoretical fight over what AT&T theoretically could have done to hold up deployment, had Google theoretically chosen to deploy over poles. (Note additionally that AT&T proposed a compromise in the city council that would’ve allowed Google contractors to do the make-ready work, but they would have to file work plans in advance and give the equipment owners 60 days to object. So the actual fight was narrower than “one touch make ready,” and far narrower than “access to poles” at all, as stated above by OP.)
    - WorldMaker 7y ago
      It should be underscored too that this is a large part of why the city government is hugely angry about this whole situation, even if they can't go on record about it. The city agreed at huge cost to fight for the One Touch Make Ready laws to use the city pole infrastructure. They agreed that would be the city's "beta test". The city has a relatively well dispersed pole grid with only a single clear owner (the power company LG&E). The city never agreed to the "nanotrenching", but Google's lawyers have made clear that by agreeing to "beta test" anything the city also agreed to "beta test" everything, including "nanotrenching" which would not have passed even a basic civil engineer inspection had it gone through appropriate planning channels.
MertsA 7y ago
>The actual reason, the core of this, has nothing to do with micro-trenching I agree that incumbent providers were doing anything and everything they could to hinder Google but the fact of the matter is that if nanotrenching hadn't failed Google wouldn't have pulled out.

jonathankoren 7y ago

At the same time, I don’t think that if you were truly serious, you’d do your deployment with a completely unproven technique.

StudentStuff 7y ago

Google could have attached to the poles, the city even fought AT&T to let them on the poles without a proper CLEC license: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-government/2017/08/16/judge-throws-out-at-t-suit-against-citys-google-fiber-proposal/573863001/ https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-go... In return, Google did not use said pole attachment rights, damaged roads and left broken infrastructure & promises.

rayiner 7y ago

Incorrect historical revisionism. Google was always allowed to use the utility poles. It lobbied Louisville to get a special law passed that would allow it to not only use the utility poles, but relocate other peoples’ wires to make space on the poles while putting up their own. (Ordinarily, the owner of the lines does the relocation.) AT&T challenged that law in court.[1] The city defended the law at its own expense, and won fairly early in the process (on a motion to dismiss). AT&T did not appeal. That was two years ago. According to the article, Google didn’t even start nano-trenching and signing up people for “fiber hoods” until October 2017, after the lawsuit was already over.[2] [1] AT&T did not challenge Google’s right to use the utility poles, only the law allowing Google contractors to relocate AT&T’s equipment and wires in the process. These laws are probably a good idea on the whole, but given the shoddy work Google’s contractors evidently did with the city’s streets, maybe AT&T’s complaint wasn’t so dumb after all. [2] The whole concept of “fiberhoods” is another concession to Google that other providers do not get. Almost everywhere, franchise agreements require universal coverage of the city, not just build-out in places with demonstrated demand. Moreover, Google wasn’t required to pay for various additional concessions that Charter had to pay in Louisville, like wiring up government buildings and providing public access channels and a studio for government use. Those provisions are routine for cable franchises, but Google Fiber categorically refuses any deal that has them.

ascagnel_ 7y ago
re: footnote 1: Google only lobbied for that law because AT&T was acting with malicious compliance -- intentionally doing the work as late as possible, so as to interfere with Google's rollout.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Not true. Google started negotiations with Louisville in 2015. The city passed the ordinance in February 2016 to become more attractive as a Fiber City candidate: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-government/2016/02/11/google-fiber-measure-passed-over-objections/80227296 https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-go... (“Tonight's vote puts Louisville one step closer toward becoming a Google Fiber city.”). Google made the official selection of Louisville as a Fiber City in April 2017, and as of that date had not even applied for any work permits: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/google-fiber-officially-selects-louisville-ky-to-run-its-new-gigabit-play https://www.techrepublic.com/article/google-fiber-officially.... The lawsuit was resolved by August 2017, four months after Google made the official selection and two months before Google started construction. Google was right to lobby for the law—it’s a good law and there is ongoing work to require similar laws at the federal level. But as far as what happened in Louisville it’s a red herring. It was a theoretical fight over what AT&T theoretically could have done to hold up deployment, had Google theoretically chosen to deploy over poles. (Note additionally that AT&T proposed a compromise in the city council that would’ve allowed Google contractors to do the make-ready work, but they would have to file work plans in advance and give the equipment owners 60 days to object. So the actual fight was narrower than “one touch make ready,” and far narrower than “access to poles” at all, as stated above by OP.)
  - WorldMaker 7y ago
    It should be underscored too that this is a large part of why the city government is hugely angry about this whole situation, even if they can't go on record about it. The city agreed at huge cost to fight for the One Touch Make Ready laws to use the city pole infrastructure. They agreed that would be the city's "beta test". The city has a relatively well dispersed pole grid with only a single clear owner (the power company LG&E). The city never agreed to the "nanotrenching", but Google's lawyers have made clear that by agreeing to "beta test" anything the city also agreed to "beta test" everything, including "nanotrenching" which would not have passed even a basic civil engineer inspection had it gone through appropriate planning channels.

MertsA 7y ago

>The actual reason, the core of this, has nothing to do with micro-trenching I agree that incumbent providers were doing anything and everything they could to hinder Google but the fact of the matter is that if nanotrenching hadn't failed Google wouldn't have pulled out.