3 ms·

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 t

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 8y 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 8y 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.

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 8y 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 8y 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.