I only read the article, not the brief, but it sounds like they&#x27;re objecting to Google touching the pole at all (AT&amp;T&#x27;s property) without working with AT&amp;T..  if it were a matter of moving around AT&amp;T&#x27;s actual equipment, I&#x27;d be with you, if it&#x27;s a matter of touching the pole, and AT&amp;T has some long dragged out process of &#x27;notification and consent&#x27;, I can see why Google wants that ability.<p>RE: Build out requirements, funny story since I was at the table for one of these contracts once.  We took it as granted that we&#x27;d keep the buildout requirement intact but if I analyze the politics of it..  tell someone they can&#x27;t have cable and you have a guaranteed vote against you, but give EVERYONE a $5 higher bill and nobody will know to blame you.