Determining Usage Rights for a Conduit

[MarkSD100]

My question involves an easement in the state of: CA

We live on a private road in which ATT has communications lines in a conduit. They are unable to provide high-speed Internet and we asked them to vacate the conduit so we could let Cox Cable use it. ATT could produce no record of having been granted an easement. The deleopment is three years old. A new conduit would cost 5000 per house.

During the months in which this was being discussed with ATT, they filed an easement based on a 1984 law allowing assignments of easements by San Diego Gas & Electric.

Can ATT be forced to run a new conduit since they didn't not have an easement at the time of construction? I don't know who actually laid the original conduit - builder or ATT.

-- Mark

[jk]

Can ATT be forced to run a new conduit since they didn't not have an easement at the time of construction?

no. in fact, if you want to argue to the point you think you can force AT&T to spend money to run a new conduit and abandon the existing one, plan on telling everybody to make sure they have cell service because AT&T will simply stop service to the area.


Is there some reason the conduit can't be shared? Do you know the diameter of the conduit?

[LandSurveyor]

What jk said.

A new conduit would cost 5000 per house.

What is this based on? Who told you that?

If you are on a private road in a private development it's possible that the developer agreed to the AT&T service on your behalf and no easement is needed.

[MarkSD100]

Currently no resident wants AT&T land line service and we told AT&T all impacted parties would sign an agreement to never request AT&T to return. Nearly all cable providers these days provide telephone service so losing AT&T is not an issue.

The conduit is four inches. We've suggesed shared conduit or conduit in a conduit. AT&T "won't allow" another other vendor in "their" coduit. And when approaching Cox Communications with this, they declined to fight AT&T for use of the shared conduit.

- - - Updated - - -

The new conduit cost is based on a quote from Cox Communications after an allowance of $1000 per house. Since the development is done, running new conduit requires significant road rework, landscaping, etc.

When we asked AT&T for any proof of agreement, they had none.

At the core of this issue is AT&T saying they will never be able to provide high-speed internet access - too far from there central office, while Cox Communications service is at the entrance of the development with high speed service.

[jk]

You can't make AT&T pull out their cable if they have the right to be there. . While there are some practical problems with sharing conduit, it's a shame they won't still. I know of a product that could be used but for 4" conduit that allows conduit to be shared but it's about $15/foot (for the product only, then you have labor on top of that and since there is a cable in the conduit, there are problems caused by that as well) . I'm betting it would be cheaper to install a separate conduit.

If Cox won't fight for it, it is really irrelevant anyway.

Since this is a private development and you don't want to pay whatever quote you have already gotten, maybe you buy a bunch of 4" schedule 40 electrical conduit (about $3 a foot) and get out your shovels and install your own?

Just kidding but you are really kind of stuck with where you are. The only suggestion I can think of is contacting your state's public service commission. They might have something to say to the issue but I wouldn't count on it.

as to the agreement to not ask AT&T to return; what about future owners?

[LandSurveyor]

You need to find out who requires "conduit" for service. Fiber optic cable is usually just "laced" into the ground.

Maybe it's a California thing. If it's a local thing, find out who decides locally. They will be in charge of who installs and uses conduit.

The fact that you live on a private road significantly limits your access to public utilities.

[jk]

You need to find out who requires "conduit" for service. Fiber optic cable is usually just "laced" into the ground.
.

good point. I was running with the OP's concern about wanting to use the conduit. Silly me, especially given what I do for a living


OP, ask Cox if they can or will simply knife the cable into the ground or at least do a direct burial installation.

Knifing it into the ground is a direct burial method but it is real fast and easy. What they do is hook the cable to a knife like attachment an the back of a little tractor like machine and literally slice the ground and pull the cable into the slice. Otherwise , they would have to dig a trench and through the cable into the ground.

[MarkSD100]

Thanks. I'll ask Cox about the knive approach and direct burial. I assume they would have considered that since three different Cox engineers have walked to site to look at options.

>>You can't make AT&T pull out their cable if they have the right to be there.
This was my core question ... whether they have the right to claim ownership of the actual existing conduit and right to use if at the time they started using it they had no legal easement granted to them.

Regarding future users, they would all of the option of telephone service and high-speed internet through Cox which is much more than ATT provides.

-- Mark

[jk]

Regarding future users, they would all of the option of telephone service and high-speed internet through Cox which is much more than ATT provides.

-- Mark

but that is you making the decision for them. What if they want AT&T? Personally, I continue my land line through AT&T although I have Comcast internet as the internet service is not as dependable as ol' Ma Bell plus my AT&T line will work just fine, even when the power is out but the Comcast will only last as long as the battery back up will.

You cannot make the decision for the folks that will live there in the future so attempting to bar AT&T from the development is a bit, well, self centered.