0
11

[–] youser 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

Yeah. If it's AT&T's poles then they shouldn't be forced to play ball with Google. Google should run their fiber underground. Aerial wires are crap. Every time the wind kicks up or a tree falls or some dumbshit crashes into a pole you lose power and comms. Underground is the way to go.

0
5

[–] HamsterSlayer 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

It also ensures separation between competitors. Good thing.

0
1

[–] poopinasock 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Yes, AT&T needs to be forced to share the pole. Power companies are forced to share with AT&T, and there's a reason for it. It reduces the amount of poles needed in a given area. In return for being forced to share the pole, a company has to compensate the owner/maintainer of the pole. It's a simple and mandated practice in the industry.

Also, running underground is way more expensive than aerial. It's also more difficult and time consuming to repair.

0
1

[–] Riflsauce 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Not to mention the fact that the taxpayers likely funded this 'private' venture.

0
6

[–] aileron_ron 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Did you know AT&T customers are still paying for 19th century telegraph service, It's under "fees".

0
4

[–] Opieswife 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This may be an oversimplification of the situation as the telecommunication laws are complex. Currently the FCC requires larger companies to share or make available part of their infrastructure to other companies, many times smaller companies and I don't see this situation as any different.

As an alternative the muncipalities could opt to take ownership of the poles by eminent domain then rent out space on those poles. The rent could cover maintenance and replacement when necessary but the companies running wire would be responsible for maintaining their own lines.

Early in our telecommunication history the mess of wires running between buildings was astounding. If we require each company to build its own individual infrastructure along side another company in the same municipality we will end up with another mess. If we don't allow some sort of compromise or have some proper high level planning we may either stifle competition or end up with an unwieldy rats nest of poles and wires.

Just a thought... Do you want 1 set of poles for electricity, 1 for local phone, 1 or more for long distance, 1 ore more for for cable and Internet? Ok in reality I know many of these services are now combined into one or two companies but that isn't always the case. What if you had no choice because you were forced to use the only company that installed poles in your neighborhood? What if you had a choice but in order to have that choice there were multiple poles every few feet intruding onto your property or sidewalk?

Edit:spelling

0
2

[–] MoonMansWay 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You raise some valid points. Its a shit situation because At&T owns the poles, but Im curious if AT&T owns the land under them. It would give that local government the right to compensate AT&T for the poles while opening them up to all companies. Its still shitty since this company put their money and time into building this infrastructure and will be forced to hand over to competitors.

0
2

[–] Riflsauce 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Chances are any investment they have into the poles was taxpayer funded.

0
2

[–] twentyfive 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I have high voltage lines on my property. I pay the taxes, not allowed any permanent structures within so feet

They are allowed to make repairs whenever. Basically free land

0
1

[–] Opieswife 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I'm not sure about the land. I think the utility companies just have an easement essentially a right to use it but not actual ownership of the property. So if a pole is in my yard it is still on my property but I can't stop the utility company from coming on my property and servicing the lines.

Generally speaking of I were a business owner I would have a problem with the government telling me to let my competitor come into the office and let them use a cubicle, computer, printer or what have you, however not every situation is so simple or black and white. Finding the right balance of rights between private citizens companies and municipalities in order to effectively and appropriately serve the community is a challenge. There are many ways to balance these needs, I don't pretend to know which is best for every situation but I do suspect it isn't a one size fits all type of thing.

0
4

[–] Drenki 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Excuse me, sir, these are union poles.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] B3bomber 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

TWC is owned by Charter now. So... just wait a few months. I already see the changes and fuck they suck. The issues I'm getting went on because the local node is original equipment from circa 1970. The new company is trying to run the same new shit through the ancient incompatible node and it fucks up.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
12

[–] DesignDecay 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

AT&T was paid by the local governments to create utility poles which they only sort of own.

0
4

[–] B3bomber 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

As in they got tax payer money to put the poles up. Very little of this shit is directly funded by AT&T.

1
0

[–] aileron_ron 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Flat4Life: You said it best.

0
2

[–] OhBlindOne [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

0
1

[–] datjedi 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

the actual scum of the earth

load more comments ▼ (2 remaining)