BY BILL CABRAL
Los Alamos

Editor’s note: The contents of this letter have not been fact-checked by the Los Alamos Reporter.

I would like to clear up some confusion about who owns the conduits in the streets within the
Quemazon Community. Hello my name is Bill Cabral, I previously owned the “Los Alamos Community Network”. I originally started the network from my computer store “Bill’s Computer Shop” in the “Central Park Square” shopping center. I had run fiber optic cable around the shopping center to the other businesses in the steam tunnels below Central Park Square.

I was approached by Sid Singer and the Watermans around Spring 2000 to put the same fiber in their Quemazon Development that they were constructing. Since I had successfully built out the network within Central Park Square they felt that I could accomplish the same for Quemazon as well.

They had placed two 2” PVC conduits in the streets around Quemazon for the use of the Cable Co. and and an internet company to provide service to the homes to be built on the empty lots. The Telephone Co. opted to direct bury their copper cable in the streets independent of the PVC conduits. They then asked me if I would like to use the other empty conduit and I said that I would.

The conduits did not go exactly where I needed them to go so I still had to dig up some of the streets and reroute some of the conduits. Still more I had to install the conduits to each house as well as the rest of the fiber and infrastructure so there was still quite a bit or work still to do. Since I knew that placing infrastructure within public right of way was an issue. So far I had put fiber only on private property. I was already anticipating this eventuality as I was intending to keep expanding my network. So I knew I needed the ability to be allowed to do this.

A little history… The Federal Government had anticipated this eventuality after the breakup of the Phone Companies. In 1996 the Federal Government passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 establishing independent Telephone or Internet providers the same rights as the Telephone Company has to be able to compete with them. The designation given to them is called a “Competitive Local Exchange Carrier” CLEC for short.

The possessors of this designation have all the same rights as the Phone Company. They even have the right to access and to place equipment within the Local Exchange on Trinity Drive. Which I did. I ran a fiber cable from my building at 999 Central Ave. through the Local Exchange to the main computing facility at the Laboratory.

I applied and was granted CLEC status back in 2005. It can be verified just by going to

https://www.prc.nm.gov/consumer-relations/company-directory/telecommunications- companies/clec/

So the question of who owns the conduits in the streets in Quemazon is mute. Allan Saenz whom I sold the network to in 2011, now owns that designation. As long as he has customers and has an economic need for the designation it will remain in effect. He has the same rights as the Cable Co. that uses the other 2” PVC conduit. The County has no right to kick him out of the conduit or condemn or take over the conduit no matter who owns it.

I ran into these same problems when I ran the network. The County constantly interfered and acted like a bully to my operation to the point that on one occasion they went and pulled down some of my equipment off a pole at Hawks Landing on North Mesa. At that point I contacted a Telecommunications Lawyer in Washington DC. He told me that I would absolutely win a case against the county but it would be best to pay the fine with the county and move the equipment to another location because I was paying him $500. dollars an hour and he would have to come out to Los Alamos on top of that to fight the County. Now If I were the Telephone Company with their deep pockets the county would have been in a world of hurt. Would the County ever consider pulling equipment of the Phone Co. off of their poles? Why do they think they can do that to a local small business trying to do good things for the community?

Why is it that the County seems to think it has the right to hurt small businesses as much as they can? Just because they can? Are they aware of the Law? Because of their heavy handed dealings with me and other considerations I eventually got tired of it all and sold the network to Allan.

I have to wonder why the County’s Council does not provide it with good legal advice? Are they unaware of the Telecommunications Act of 1996? Are they just to lazy to read the Statutes? I am not sure but it is the same situation as when I owned the network. As far as the Community Broadband Project. I believe it will fail. It is a hard thing to do. Many people have tried and mostly failed including Google. I speak as someone who has succeeded and it is still operating 20 years on. What I see happening is that it will not be able to bring in enough money and at some point will have to be subsidized by the taxpayers. I believe this is totally unacceptable. Then you will have the situation where the Government will be in direct competition with someone who put in his own money to build up something the the Government undercuts him on.

I believe that if the County really wanted to do good they should not have gotten in my way so many years ago and impaired and impeded a good thing. Why would they do that? Is it really in the public interest?

If they really wanted a good internet system for the County they should have issued a bond to help Allan build out his network. He has a proven history of making such a thing work. Unlike the guys they got.

Maybe when the County’s Broadband Project fails they will sell it to Allan and he can show them how it is done. Although by that time they will probably have put Allan out of business and we will be left with less then we have now. That’s OK I will still have my Starlink.