Most of the comments are discussing broader issues that aren&#x27;t actually part of this particular lawsuit. Those issues are certainly more interesting than the narrow issue that this lawsuit is about, so I can understand why everyone wants to talk about them. Nevertheless, we should have at least <i>some</i> discussion about the actual lawsuit, so I&#x27;ll have a shot at it. :-)<p>I took a look at AT&amp;T&#x27;s court filing (there&#x27;s a link in the article to it for those who want more detail). They make two main arguments.<p>The first argument is that under FCC rules an entity with existing attachments is entitled to written notification if someone else&#x27;s attachment is going to affect their facilities. They then have 60 days to modify their attachments to accommodate the new attachments. If they do not complete the work on time to accommodate the new attachments, then the entity wanting the new attachment can go ahead and do the work themselves.<p>Under the municipal ordinance the new attacher only has to provide notification if they think that their work is likely to cause a customer outage. If not they can simply go in themselves and move or modify the existing attachment.<p>This is at odds with the FCC rules, and AT&amp;T argues that this should invalidate the municipal ordinance.<p>The second argument AT&amp;T makes is that while the Federal law <i>does</i> allow states to override FCC pole attachment rules in some circumstances, Kentucky state law vests such power exclusively in the Public Service Commission of Kentucky (and they cite Kentucky court cases confirming that this includes the power to regulate pole attachments). Thus, AT&amp;T argues, the municipal government does not have authority to enact its ordinance.<p>These actually seem like pretty decent arguments. I&#x27;m curious what counterarguments the defendants will raise.