undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdrewcrawford11y ago0 comments

Another nice narrative that doesn't fit with experimental data.

In spite of the fact that one would imagine a Texas city to be less regulated than a California city, it isn't really that simple.

In Austin a strong majority of the utility poles are owned by the city. The ones that aren't are largely owned by AT&T, which complains very loudly that it is required to sell access to anyone who wants it at a price dictated by the Federal Communications Commission nationwide.

Meanwhile California (get this) opted out of much of the FCC regulation around utility poles and effectively allows a large private company to own and control the poles. This private company is made up of all the usual suspects like AT&T, Sprint, PG&E, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc., who seem to have formed a holding company to buy utility poles without anyone at the state being concerned about antitrust concerns. I'm not exactly sure what the requirements are to join--if access is "open" (for some definition of open) this may be how they circumvent the Sherman Antitrust Act etc.

California did pass "fair access" laws in 2011 [1] but as far as I can tell they only apply to "local publicly owned electric utilities" which presumably would not include AT&T and its utility pole holding company. There probably is some kind of regulation that in principle regulates competitive access to poles but how it compares to the FCC's jurisdiction in Texas it is difficult to say.

This is a side note, but we should really be having less talk about how we think regulation works and more case studies about how it does or doesn't work in these comment threads. "Less regulation == better internet" is a plausible model but so was the Bohr Model of the atom. "Is it correct?" is the question and that question can only be answered by looking at empirically what happens.

[1] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xht...

0 comments

rayiner11y ago

The fact Austin is less regulated isn't a hypothetical. We know Austin is less regulated than most cities. Its a Google Fiber city, which means it agreed to ditch most of the regulations, like build out requirements, that other cities impose. Google doesn't bring fiber to a city without massive concessions. Kansas City agreed to get the permits through in five days. Provo sold Google a $30 million fiber network for $1.

Maybe pole attachments have something to do with it too, but lots of cities own their poles but don't have competing fiber services.

See: http://crosscut.com/2014/03/04/business/118993/google-fiber-...

Also re Portland: http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2023420101_b...

The last article is a must-read. This is the kind of person standing in the way of fiber deployment, as much as any cable lobbyist.

"That’s a nice deal where it’s available. But the company has been slow to expand its coverage area in Kansas City and vague about if and when it will reach some working-class areas, according to a report in The Kansas City Star.

Cities really have one opportunity to ensure that all of their residents will be served by these next generation broadband services.

That’s during the initial franchise negotiations, when cities can press for universal coverage in return for the special rules and public property they’re offering up.

Once cities provide these handouts, they don’t have much leverage. They’ll end up bowing and scraping and hoping that Uncle Google throws a bit more fiber their way, someday."

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse