Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 37 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
INSIGHT KENTUCKY PARTNERS II, L.P.
Plaintiff,
vs.

3:16-CV-625-CRS
Case No. ____________________________

LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY
METRO GOVERNMENT,
LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL
Defendants.

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Insight Kentucky Partners II, L.P. (“Insight”), now a subsidiary of Charter
Communications, Inc., files this Complaint against Defendants Louisville/Jefferson County
Metro Government (“Louisville Metro” or “Metro”) and the Louisville Metro Council (“Metro
Council”) (collectively, “Louisville”), alleging as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
A fundamental principle of our federal and state governmental system is that the
government may not favor one similarly situated member of the press or other speaker over
another without special justification. This principle is enshrined in the First and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as in similar constitutional provisions in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky. In this case, without cause or justification, Louisville Metro
has violated the principle by allowing Insight’s two wireline video competitors to operate and
thereby communicate with the public under materially less burdensome regulations and franchise
obligations. When requested by Insight to level the burdens and obligations among these
similarly situated speakers by reducing Insight’s regulatory burdens to those imposed on its

-1-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 37 PageID #: 2

direct competitors, Louisville Metro refused. Insight thus has no alternative but to seek judicial
relief from this Court.
As it has advised Louisville Metro on more than one occasion, Insight does not oppose
the entry of additional video competitors in Louisville—or indeed elsewhere. Understanding
that the video market place is increasingly competitive, Insight does not shy from the challenges
offered by additional competition and expects to be successful wherever it stands on an equal
footing with its competitors. But fair competition requires that the government, whatever its
motives, treat similarly situated speakers the same and not unfairly weight one side of the
regulatory scale.
Insight, a long-time wireline video provider in Louisville, currently operates under a
burdensome franchise and regulatory scheme. When BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC
(“AT&T”) brought its directly competitive wireline video service to Louisville in 2009,
Louisville Metro allowed it to operate without any local franchise or local regulation. And when
Google Fiber Kentucky, LLC (“Google”) negotiated with Louisville Metro to offer its
competitive video service in the Metro area this year, Louisville Metro allowed it to avoid almost
all of the regulatory burdens under which Insight has been operating for decades without offering
Insight the opportunity to operate on those same terms. When faced with the prospect of
additional wireline video competition in the Metro area, Louisville Metro could have relaxed the
regulatory burdens under which Insight operates to match those afforded to Google. It refused to
do so. This stark difference in regulatory treatment among similarly situated communications
providers, all transmitting video programming from their facilities to their customers over their
networks, in effect means that it is less burdensome and expensive for Insight’s competitors to

-2-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 3 of 37 PageID #: 3

speak in Louisville. The result is an unlevel playing field that undermines, rather than promotes,
competition and consumer choice by distorting the marketplace for video services.
At the same time, in a further effort to encourage Google to build facilities in the Metro
area, Louisville Metro passed an ordinance purporting to authorize new competitors—that is to
say, Google—to take possession of the distribution wires and cables of existing communications
companies—that is to say, Insight—and to move them to different locations on utility poles.
This so-called “One-Touch” ordinance allows Google to take these actions without prior notice
and puts strict limitations on Insight’s ability to uncover any possible damage caused to its plant
by its competitor or even to assure that it is able to recover the costs of necessary cures. The
One-Touch procedures also could allow Insight’s competitors (intentionally or unintentionally)
to damage or disrupt Insight’s ability to serve its customers, creating an inaccurate perception in
the market about Insight’s service quality and harming its goodwill. These procedures also
threaten public safety as Insight is responsible for providing service to critical infrastructure in
Louisville Metro, in addition to its customers’ access to 911 and other emergency services. And
they intrude upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission of Kentucky to
regulate the use of privately-owned utility poles.
Therefore, Insight now requests this Court to require Louisville Metro to do what federal
and state law requires: bring parity in regulation to Louisville by applying the same regulatory
burdens on Insight that it applies to AT&T and Google so that all similarly situated speakers are
treated equally in their ability to communicate with the public. Insight also requests the Court to
disallow Louisville’s action allowing competitors to trespass on, convert, take possession of, and
potentially damage, Insight’s property.

-3-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 4 of 37 PageID #: 4

PARTIES
1.

On May 18, 2016, through a series of transactions, Charter Communications, Inc.

became the ultimate parent of Insight Kentucky Partners II, L.P. (“Insight”).
2.

Plaintiff Insight is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of

business in Connecticut. None of Insight’s partners, or any corporations or members of limited
liability companies within Insight’s ownership chain, are citizens of Kentucky.
3.

Defendant Louisville Metro is a consolidated local government, consisting of the

City of Louisville and Jefferson County, with the capacity to sue and be sued. It is organized
pursuant to the provisions of Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 67C.
4.

Defendant Louisville Metro Council is responsible for formulating and adopting

policy for Louisville Metro. It is currently comprised of council members Jessica Green,
Barbara Shanklin, Mary C. Woolridge, David Tandy, Cheri Bryant Hamilton, David James,
Angela Leet, Tom Owen, Bill Hollander, Pat Mulvihill, Kevin Kramer, Rick Blackwell, Vicki
Aubrey Welch, Cindi Fowler, Marianne Butler, Kelly Downard, Glen Stuckel, Marilyn Parker,
Julie Denton, Stuart Benson, Dan Johnson, Robin Engel, James Peden, Madonna Flood, David
Yates, and Brent Ackerson.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because

Insight alleges violations of federal law. Specifically, this action arises under the First, Fifth, and
Fourteenth Amendments and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States, and
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Insight’s state law claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

-4-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 5 of 37 PageID #: 5

6.

This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Complete diversity exists between the parties. Insight is a citizen of Delaware with a principal
place of business in Connecticut. Louisville is a consolidated local government organized under
the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The matter in controversy far exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000. Insight seeks to protect rights that are worth far more than the diversity
threshold and is threatened with damage that also exceeds the threshold.
7.

The Court’s authority to grant declaratory relief is based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-

2202 because an actual controversy exists.
8.

Venue lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the acts and

omissions giving rise to Insight’s claims occurred in this district.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
A. The Three Wireline Video Providers in Louisville Use the Public Rights of
Way in the Same Way to Deliver the Same Types of Video Programming in
Direct Competition with One Another.
9.

Wireline video providers use facilities placed in public rights-of-way to transmit

video programming to their customers. To do so, the wireline providers require governmental
consent to use the public rights-of-way. The existing wireline video providers in Louisville
include Insight and BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC (“AT&T”). Google Fiber Kentucky,
LLC (“Google”), has applied for, and has been granted, authority by Louisville Metro to become
a wireline video provider in the Metro area by constructing its own wireline video network and
providing services in Louisville that compete directly with video services offered by Insight and
AT&T.
10.

Each of the three wireline video providers that offer services in Louisville, or

propose to, uses facilities that are placed in or along the municipal rights-of-way in essentially
the same way. They each run a network of wires and cables, including fiber optic wires, from
-5-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 6 of 37 PageID #: 6

central locations directly to their customers’ businesses and residences. Most of the wires and
cables are hung aerially on existing utility poles along the rights-of-way.
11.

Insight, AT&T and Google will each provide video services in direct competition

to one another. Like Insight and AT&T, Google proposes to provide video services that will
transmit video programming from its network facilities to its customers.
12.

Insight, AT&T, and Google will each transmit prescheduled video programming,

including local broadcast stations, national non-broadcast programming services, and premium
entertainment channels (i.e., ABC, CBS, ESPN, CNN, or HBO), at the same time and on the
same schedule as the programming is being delivered from the programming provider. All three
wireline video providers also will transmit on-demand and pay-per-view programming.
13.

Video consumers in Louisville, for which Insight, AT&T and Google will

compete, will access the programming provided by the three wireline video providers in the
same way. A customer of any of these providers will use a remote control or other home
equipment to call up and to change channels of prescheduled video programming, or to order ondemand content. When a customer of Insight, AT&T, or Google wants to watch video
programming, he or she will interact in some way with the wireline video provider’s network to
select a particular stream of video programming that is delivered from the provider’s network
facilities to the customer’s equipment.
14.

To the customers, and potential customers, of each of these wireline video

providers in Louisville, the three wireline providers’ video services will be considered largely
equivalent. Except to the extent that consumer decisions are influenced by how the disparate
regulatory burdens placed on the providers impact their ability to provide services, customers
will choose among the wireline video providers based on price and service, ease of use, and

-6-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 7 of 37 PageID #: 7

individual special programming or types of programming that one competitor has developed or
chosen to provide that is not offered by its competitors.
B. Louisville Metro Has Imposed A Regulatory Regime on Insight That is Much
More Onerous Than it has Imposed on its Direct Competitors.
i. Insight’s Wireline Video Service in Louisville.
15.

Insight provides a variety of communications services—including video

programming, video-on-demand, high-speed Internet access, and digital phone service—to
residents throughout Louisville and in the surrounding areas. Insight and its predecessor entities
have served Louisville for decades.
16.

Insight’s video programming includes hundreds of channels, including local

broadcast stations, national cable channels (e.g., A&E, AMC, Animal Planet, BET, Bravo, CNN,
Disney Channel, Discovery, ESPN, and more), and premium entertainment channels (e.g., HBO,
Showtime). Insight also provides on-demand and pay-per-view programming. Among its video
offerings, Insight carries exclusive programming that it has developed that is not available to its
competitors, such as a channel of programming called “cn   2” (standing for “Commonwealth
Network” on Channel 2), which provides 24-hour weather, a specific forecast for Louisville
delivered by meteorologists live, as well as local sports and political coverage. Insight also
carries public, educational and governmental (“PEG”) programming that, on information and
belief, is not carried by AT&T.
ii. Insight’s Wireline Video Service is Subject to Onerous Regulation by
Louisville Metro.
17.

Louisville Metro subjects Insight to stringent regulation as a “Cable

Communications System” under Chapter 116 of the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro
Government Code of Ordinances (“Metro Code”). A copy of Chapter 116 is attached to this
Complaint as Exhibit (“Ex.”) 1.

-7-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 8 of 37 PageID #: 8

18.

Section 116.16 defines a “Cable Communications System” as “[a]ny facility that,

in whole or in part, receives directly or indirectly, and amplifies or otherwise modifies signals
which transmit non-broadcast services, and/or programming broadcast or furnished by one or
more television or radio stations or similar facility and distributes such signals by wire or cable
to subscribing members of the public who pay for such service.” Ex. 1. Insight does not dispute
that it operates a “Cable Communications System” as defined by Section 116.16.
19.

The regulatory provisions in Louisville Metro’s “Regulations for Cable

Communications System” in Chapter 116.01-116.50 set forth basic requirements for all
franchises to be awarded to cable communications providers, including extension of service
requirements, customer service obligations, privacy regulations, performance measurements,
interconnection requirements with other similar networks, rate regulation, requirements
regarding street occupancy, reporting requirements, handling complaints, and the requirement to
obtain a franchise from Louisville Metro, among others.
20.

The extensive regulatory requirements in Chapter 116 exact a significant cost on

Insight. Not only do some of these requirements exact a direct cost, but regulation in the form of
reports, government review and requirements as to how Insight deals with its customers have a
significant impact on Insight’s ability to operate its business efficiently and cost effectively.
21.

In Louisville, Insight has been required to operate under a franchise agreement

adopted via Ordinance No. 76, Series 1998 (as amended) (the “Franchise Agreement”), effective
May 31, 1998. The Franchise Agreement is attached as Exhibit 2. The Franchise Agreement’s

-8-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 9 of 37 PageID #: 9

initial term expired in 2010. Insight timely initiated franchise renewal negotiations under the
Federal Cable Act, however, and the Franchise Agreement remains in full force and effect.1
22.

The Franchise Agreement imposes substantial costs and other burdens on Insight

that materially impact its ability to operate flexibly and cost effectively in delivering services to
the subscribing public. Insight’s franchise creates obligations related to system construction,
system extension to serve new customers, customer service, an institutional network, PEG
channels and a PEG studio, and more. It also authorizes extensive regulatory intrusion into
Insight’s affairs, including by imposing burdensome record-keeping and reporting requirements.
Together, these franchise obligations impact the cost and flexibility of Insight’s delivery of
services.
iii. AT&T’s Wireline Video Service in Louisville.
23.

AT&T receives video programming and distributes it for pay to the subscribing

public over a wired network in Louisville under its “U-verse” brand. AT&T’s facilities,
consisting of fiber optic and copper cables and associated equipment, use Metro’s rights-of-ways
in the same manner as Insight’s facilities. AT&T serves its video customers via wires and cables
that are largely strung on utility poles, and buried beneath the ground, along and in the rights-ofway in Louisville.

1

In 2015 Louisville adopted Resolution No. 107, Series 2015, authorizing Charter
Communications, Inc. to become the ultimate parent company of Insight. The Resolution states:
“The Metro Government confirms that the Franchise is valid and outstanding, in full force and
effect.” Resolution No. 107, Series 2015 § 2. Also, in a “Settlement Agreement” dated February
12, 2012, Louisville Metro and Charter agreed that Insight has a right to operate under the
Franchise Agreement until the renewal process provided under federal law has been completed.
Louisville Metro has indicated that it is not interested in negotiating a renewal franchise at this
time.

-9-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 10 of 37 PageID #: 10

24.

Unlike its treatment of Insight, Louisville Metro does not regulate AT&T as a

“Cable Communications System” under the Metro Code. AT&T takes the position that it
operates under an historic state-issued telecommunications franchise and does not require a
separate video franchise to operate in the Metro area.2 As a result, although AT&T provides
equivalent video services to its customers in the Metro area, Louisville Metro does not regulate
AT&T’s video services or require AT&T to operate under a Metro franchise. Upon information
and belief, AT&T is required by Louisville Metro only to comply with generally applicable
permitting procedures for its work in the right-of-way. AT&T thus has avoided all of the
burdensome regulation and franchise requirements under which Insight operates.3
iv. Google’s Wireline Video Service in Louisville.
25.

Google intends to receive video programming and distribute it for pay to the

subscribing public over a wired network in Louisville. Google is in the process of “build[ing] a
fiber optic network in the public rights of way” in Louisville, “deploying both aerial and
underground infrastructure.” See Ex. 3, Communications Franchise Application for Google
Fiber Kentucky, LLC, at Ex. C. Upon completion of construction, Google “intends to offer
video and Internet services for purchase” in Louisville. See id. at Ex. A.
26.

Google’s video offering includes a full lineup of local broadcast and cable

channels, including many of the same channels offered by Insight. Upon information and belief,

No court has entered a final judgment addressing AT&T’s position. Reversing on procedural
grounds a district court’s ruling on the issue, the Sixth Circuit observed that “the video
component of [AT&T’s service] may or may not fall within the rubric of AT&T’s perpetual
telephone franchise.” See Mediacom Se. LLC v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., 672 F.3d 396 (6th
Cir. 2012). Insight does not, in this lawsuit, take any position regarding the legality of AT&T’s
position.
2

3

Louisville Metro cannot simply choose not to regulate AT&T, while at the same time imposing
and enforcing burdensome local regulations and franchise requirements on Insight.

-10-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 11 of 37 PageID #: 11

Google’s video offering will include A&E, AMC, Animal Planet, CNN, Discovery, Disney
Channel, ESPN and more, in addition to on-demand and pay-per-view offerings. See Ex. 4,
Google’s Channel Guide for Nashville, Tennessee.4
27.

Although Google intends to provide video services that will be functionally

equivalent from a customer’s perspective to the video services offered by Insight and although
Google’s system will use the rights-of-way in the same way as Insight’s system, Louisville
Metro is not regulating Google as a “Cable Communications System” under its “Regulations for
Cable Communications Systems” in Sections 116.01-116.50 of the Metro Code. Instead,
Louisville Metro intends to treat Google as a “Communications Service” provider, subject to
only minimal regulations in Sections 116.70-116.77 of the Metro Code, and not under the
intrusive regulatory regime applied to Insight. See Ex. 5, Ordinance No. 88, Series 2016.
28.

Section 116.70 defines a “Communications Service” as “the transmission via

facilities, in whole or in part, of any writings, signs, signals, pictures, sounds or other forms of
intelligence through wire, wireless or other means, including, but not limited to, and
‘telecommunications service,’ ‘enhanced service,’ ‘information service,’ or ‘Internet service,’ as
such terms are now, or may in the future be, defined under federal law, and including all
instrumentality, facilities, conduit, apparatus (‘Communications Facilities’), and services (among
other things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of telecommunications) incidental to or
designed to directly or indirectly facilitate or accept such transmission. This term does not
include ‘Cable Service’5 or ‘Open Video System Service,’ but ‘Cable Services’ and ‘Open Video
4

Upon information and belief, Google has not yet released a channel guide for Louisville.

“Cable Service” is defined by reference to federal law, 47 U.S.C. § 522(6) (“[T]he term ‘cable
service’ means—(A) the one-way transmission to subscribers of (i) video programming, or (ii)
other programming service, and (B) subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the
selection or use of such video programming or other programming service.”).
5

-11-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 12 of 37 PageID #: 12

System Service’ shall be subject to separate franchising requirements and applications. This
term does not include over-the-air radio or television broadcasts to the public at large licensed by
the FCC or any successor thereto.” Ex. 1.
29.

On February 11, 2016, Louisville Metro approved an “Interlocal Cooperation

Agreement” between Louisville Metro and the municipalities within Jefferson County with
franchise authority. See Ex. 6. The Interlocal Agreement authorized Louisville Metro to
advertise and process bids for a single, standard franchise agreement (the “Uniform Franchise”)
for communications infrastructure services providers seeking to serve Louisville Metro and the
municipalities in Jefferson County. Louisville Metro and the other franchising authorities in
Jefferson County agreed that the Uniform Franchise would be administered according to Metro
Code Sections 116.70-116.77 and Louisville Metro’s permitting process. Before the Uniform
Franchise can take effect in a particular community, the applicable franchising authority must
review and approve it.
30.

On June 9, 2016, Louisville Metro awarded Google a Uniform Franchise under

which Google will operate throughout Louisville Metro under Section 116.70 et seq. of the
Metro Code.
31.

Google’s Uniform Franchise incorporates the minimal regulations contained in

Sections 116.70-116.77. See Ex. 5, Uniform Franchise ¶¶ 2, 5, 7. Under the Uniform Franchise,
Google must comply with the applicable requirements in the Louisville Metro Public Works &
Assets Utility Policy, and with Louisville Metro’s permitting and inspection requirements related
to work in the right-of-way. Id. ¶¶ 4, 7-8. Google’s Uniform Franchise also provides that, in the
event Kentucky law changes to allow Louisville Metro to impose a franchise fee, Google’s

-12-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 13 of 37 PageID #: 13

franchise fee shall be calculated in accordance with Section 116.71(K) of the Metro Code. Id.
¶ 5.6 Section 116.71(K) would require payment of a “Communications Franchise Fee” equal to
“(1) $100 per antenna in the rights-of-way; plus (2) [a] fee equal to the lessor of (i) $50,000, or
(ii) the sum of” various amounts charged on a per-foot basis for wires and bundles of wires in the
rights-of-way.”
32.

The Uniform Franchise and Metro Code combine to impose only the following

limited requirements on Google:

33.



Indemnify Louisville Metro and maintain insurance and bonds for any
damages that Louisville Metro might incur in connection with Google’s
provision of service;



Install conduit provided to Google by Louisville Metro; and



Pay Louisville Metro an annual franchise fee in an amount not to exceed
$50,000, if state law is changed to permit such a fee.

In the Uniform Franchise, Louisville Metro also committed to act on applications

submitted by Google for a right-of-way permit within 10 days, or else it would waive any
concerns or objections and the permit would be deemed granted. See Ex. 5, Uniform Franchise
¶ 7. Louisville Metro also agreed to use its best efforts to notify Google of “any unique features
and/or conditions . . . which could have the potential to hinder, delay or alter construction or
significantly increase the cost thereof.” Id.

6

Kentucky law currently prohibits local franchise fees. See K.R.S. § 136.660. A challenge to
the constitutionality of that law is pending before the Kentucky Supreme Court. See Kentucky
CATV Assoc. v. City of Florence, Kentucky, Nos. 2015-SC-000178-D & 2015-SC-000181-D
(Consolidated).

-13-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 14 of 37 PageID #: 14

C. Louisville Metro’s Regulatory Scheme Unlawfully Subjects Insight, AT&T,
and Google—Wireline Providers of Substantially Equivalent Video
Services—to Disparate and Discriminatory Obligations.
34.

When Google’s network is completed, Google, AT&T and Insight will compete

as wireline video providers providing substantially equivalent video services using Louisville
Metro’s rights-of-way.
35.

Insight understands that Louisville Metro takes the position that Google (like

AT&T) uses Internet Protocol (“IP”) packets to deliver its digital video signals to customers and
that somehow makes a difference in how Google and Insight should be treated by local
government. Insight also delivers digital video signals to its customers, including by packetizing
those signals using IP technology in parts of its network, although the signals are no longer in IP
packets when they reach most customers’ homes. But whatever the differences in technology
used in the delivery of video programming to customers via wires and cables installed in, over
and along city streets, for purposes of the regulatory and franchise burdens imposed by
Louisville Metro on Insight, any differences are immaterial and legally irrelevant. Both delivery
systems use the rights-of-way in the same way. Both deliver the same types of video
programming to their customers. And both services are functionally equivalent from a
customer’s perspective.
36.

The technology the companies use to transmit video programming to their

customers—whether they use radio frequency signals, digital signals, or digital signals
packetized with IP technology—does not create any meaningful differences justifying disparate
regulatory treatment by Louisville Metro. Louisville Metro’s regulations governing Cable
Communications Systems are indeed focused on the functional use of the system to deliver video
services to the subscribing public and not keyed to the type of technology used in the delivery.

-14-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 15 of 37 PageID #: 15

37.

The contrast in regulatory burdens imposed by Louisville Metro on Insight on the

one hand and Google and AT&T on the other is stark. Among other things, the applicable
franchises and Metro Code provisions impose the following disparate regulatory burdens:


Insight must provide three PEG channels, see Ex. 2, Franchise Agreement
§ 46(1), provide live coverage of council meetings, school board meetings,
a schedule of events in the community, and other local programming on
these channels, see id., and maintain a public access studio, see id. § 46(2).
Insight has shouldered the cost of constructing several public access
studios over the years to comply with these requirements, including a new
studio built four years ago. Google has no PEG obligations. Nor does
AT&T.



Insight must construct and maintain an institutional network (“I-Net”) for
governmental uses and offer Louisville capacity on the I-Net for no
charge. See id. § 47. The I-Net Insight maintains for Metro’s use is
extensive, connecting scores of locations across the Metro area with
Insight’s fiber. Google has no I-Net obligations. Nor does AT&T.



Insight must maintain an office in Louisville and must maintain books,
accounts, and records of any complaints that must be made available to
Louisville. See Ex. 1, Metro Code §§ 116.46, 116.45. Google has no
requirement to maintain an office or records for inspection. Nor does
AT&T.



Insight must maintain a repair and maintenance service capable of
responding to complaints or requests within 24 hours. See id.
§§ 116.29(D). Google has no obligation to maintain a repair and
maintenance service, or respond to complaints within a specific time
period. Nor does AT&T.



Insight must offer subscribers a pro rata credit or rebate to compensate
subscribers for any service interruptions. See id. § 116.29(E). Google has
no obligation to compensate subscribers for service interruptions. Nor
does AT&T.



Insight must submit to system performance measurement tests. See id.
§ 116.32. Google has no such obligation. Nor does AT&T.



Insight must file annually a full schedule of all subscriber and user rates
with Louisville, see id. § 116.35, and must also provide an annual report
regarding its activities over the preceding year, see id. § 116.41; Ex. 2,
Franchise Agreement §§ 11, 12. Google has no annual reporting
requirements. Nor does AT&T.

-15-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 16 of 37 PageID #: 16



Insight must notify customers periodically of their rights and
responsibilities, see Ex. 2, Franchise Agreement §§ 13(1), 14, notify
customers of any changes in billing or payment practices, see id. § 15(1),
provide subscribers with credit for any service outages, see id. § 16, and
comply with a number of additional requirements to communicate with
customers regarding products, prices, channel positions, billing, refunds,
and credits, among other things, see id. § 17(4). Google has no obligation
to provide subscribers with notices about rights, billing and payment, or
service outages. Nor does AT&T.



Insight must maintain 24/7 customer telephone access lines, see id.
§ 17(2)(a), answer customer calls within 30 seconds, see id. § 17(2)(b),
ensure that customers receive a busy signal less than 3% of the time, see
id. § 17(2)(c), and provide a customer service center and bill payment
location within Louisville Metro, see id. § 17(2)(d). Google has no
obligation to provide customer access lines or a physical location for
customer service and bill payment. Nor does AT&T.



Insight must perform standard installations within seven days after an
order has been placed, see id. § 17(3)(a), begin work on any service
interruptions within 24 hours of receipt of notice of the interruption, see
id. § 17(3)(b), provide a maximum four hour appointment window for any
installation or customer call, see id. §§ 17(3)(c)-(e), and adhere to
prescribed response times for any service requests, see id. § 19. Google’s
Uniform Franchise contains no timelines within which it must install
service or repair any reported problems. Nor does AT&T have any such
obligations.



Insight must maintain service logs. See id. § 20. Google has no such
obligation. Nor does AT&T.



Insight must maintain sufficient repair parts and personnel. See id. § 23.
Google has no such obligation. Nor does AT&T.



Insight must adhere to a proscribed schedule for the imposition of late fees
and collections on past due accounts. See id. § 25(2). Google has no such
obligation. Nor does AT&T.



Insight must allow customers to downgrade service, see id. § 26, and
resolve customer complaints within 3 days, see id. § 27. Google has no
such obligation. Nor does AT&T.



Insight must follow a preventive maintenance program. See id. § 36.
Google has no such obligation. Nor does AT&T.



Insight must install and extend its communications service offerings to
newly developed geographic areas within Louisville Metro. See Ex. 1,

-16-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 17 of 37 PageID #: 17

Metro Code § 116.28. Insight also must extend service to any area within
Louisville Metro that has a density of 25 home passings per aerial mile of
wire, or 35 home passings per underground mile of wire. See Ex. 2,
Franchise Agreement § 32. Google does not have any obligation to extend
service. Nor does AT&T.


38.

If Kentucky law were changed to allow the collection of local franchise
fees, Insight would be required to pay Louisville franchise fees in the
amount of three percent of its total gross revenues derived from cable
service in Louisville Metro. See id. § 39. Google’s franchise fee would
be capped at $50,000 per year. See Ex. 5 ¶ 5; Ex. 1, Metro Code
§ 116.71(K).

Insight incurs substantial costs meeting these obligations each year. Google will

not be required to incur any of these costs. Nor will AT&T.
39.

The substantial costs incurred by Insight to comply with its burdensome

regulatory requirements—which are avoided by Google and AT&T—have a material impact on
Insight’s ability to provide service and compete for customers. Metro’s discriminatory
regulatory treatment thus contravenes its stated goal of bringing competition to Louisville by
distorting the market for video services and harming consumer choice.
40.

In addition to disparate regulatory burdens, the Uniform Franchise also affords

Google favorable permitting rules that are denied Insight. For example, Louisville Metro will
use its best efforts to notify Google—in advance of its permit applications—of any unique
conditions that could hinder its construction or increase its costs. And Metro will act on
Google’s permit applications within 10 days, or else those applications will be deemed granted.
Insight is not afforded these benefits.
41.

Neither federal nor state law authorizes Louisville Metro to establish two different

regulatory regimes for entities that are providing substantially equivalent services using
substantially similar equipment placed in the public rights-of-way.

-17-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 18 of 37 PageID #: 18

D. Louisville Metro Refused to Level the Playing Field for Insight on the One
Hand and Google and AT&T on the Other.
42.

Prior to and after Louisville Metro granted Google its Uniform Franchise, Insight

requested that Metro afford Insight similar regulatory treatment to that afforded Google.
43.

Insight sent its first letter on June 9, 2016, prior to Louisville Metro’s vote on

Google’s Uniform Franchise. Insight’s letter explained its position that it would be inappropriate
and unlawful for Metro to require Insight to operate under more burdensome and less favorable
obligations than Google. If Louisville proceeded to award the Uniform Franchise, Insight
indicated it would seek comparable regulatory treatment.
44.

After Louisville Metro awarded the Uniform Franchise, Insight sent a letter on

July 28, 2016, formally requesting that Metro and its member governments reduce the regulatory
burdens on Insight to mirror those allowed for Google.
45.

Louisville Metro could have extended to Insight the same relaxed regulatory

framework it developed for Google or the total lack of regulations Metro allows AT&T. Even
after Metro awarded Google its more favorable franchise and decided to regulate Google under
the light-touch of its Communications Ordinance, Metro could have achieved parity by agreeing
to subject Insight to the same relaxed regulation with similar light franchise obligations. Metro
chose instead to keep Insight under the yoke of an extensive and burdensome regulatory regime
while allowing Google and AT&T to provide the same video services with virtually no
regulatory burdens or intrusion.
46.

In its August 19, 2016 response to Insight’s two letters, Metro “politely” declined

to treat Insight equivalently to the regulatory treatment it has allowed for Google.

-18-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 19 of 37 PageID #: 19

E. Louisville Metro’s Regulatory Actions Also Favor Google’s Access to
“Essential” Infrastructure At Insight’s Expense.
47.

In addition to imposing greater obligations and burdens on Insight relative to

Google and AT&T, Metro has conferred additional benefits and privileges on Google at Insight’s
direct expense. On February 11, 2016, Metro adopted its so-called “One-Touch Ordinance,”
codified at Metro Code § 116.72(D), to streamline and reduce the cost to Google of completing a
competitive video network. The One-Touch Ordinance allows Google to rearrange or relocate
Insight’s wires and facilities, without providing advance notice or adequate assurance that it will
cure problems its tampering creates. See id. The Ordinance is designed to reduce Google’s costs
of constructing its network and speed time to market for delivery of its services to the
subscribing public.
i. Wireline Video Providers Rely On Essential Infrastructure Owned By
Utilities.
48.

Owing to economic, environmental, aesthetic, local zoning and rights-of-way

restrictions, wireline video providers do not have a practical alternative to relying on existing
utility pole and conduit networks owned and maintained by electric power and telephone utilities
to construct their networks. Courts, legislative bodies, and administrative agencies have
recognized this reality. The United States Supreme Court has observed that “[c]able television
operators, in order to deliver television signals to their subscribers, must have a physical carrier
for the cable; in most instances, underground installation of the necessary cables is impossible
and impractical. Utility compan[ies’] poles provide, under such circumstances, virtually the only
practical medium for the installation of television cables.” FCC v. Florida Power Corp., 480
U.S. 245, 247 (1987).
49.

The United States Congress and state legislatures have taken steps to ensure

wireline providers are able to access this “essential” facility on just and reasonable terms.
-19-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 20 of 37 PageID #: 20

Kentucky confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Kentucky Public Service Commission (the
“Commission”) to regulate the rates and services of regulated utilities. K.R.S. § 278.040(2).
That jurisdiction extends to the use of the facilities of all utilities. K.R.S. § 278.280. And it
includes authority to regulate the rates, terms, and conditions as well as safety and engineering
issues applicable to pole attachments made by wireline providers. See, e.g., In re CATV Pole
Attachment Tariff of Gen. Tel. Co. of Ky., Admin. Case 251-8, Order ¶¶ 9(e)-(h) (Ky. PSC May
31, 1983).7 It is settled law that providing attachment to utility poles is a “service” subject to
regulation by the Commission. Ky. CATV Assoc. v. Volz, 675 S.W.2d 393 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983).
50.

The Commission has the authority to “investigate any practice or act affecting or

relating to the service of the utility or any service in connection therewith,” including practices
that involve pole attachments, “which may be unreasonable, unsafe, insufficient, or unjustly
discriminatory.” K.R.S. § 278.260.
51.

The Commission has required utility pole owners within its regulatory jurisdiction

to establish the terms and condition of attachment in tariffs that are approved by the
Commission. The two primary pole owners in Louisville are AT&T and Louisville Gas &
Electric Company (“LG&E”). AT&T’s tariff provides that the person seeking adjustments to
existing facilities on AT&T’s poles must negotiate with the owners of those facilities for the
rearrangement of their facilities and structures. LG&E’s pole attachment tariff similarly
provides that the responsibility for adjusting the facilities on LG&E’s poles lies with the owner
of the facilities. Both the pole owners and those parties that make attachment to the poles are
required by law to observe the requirements in these tariffs. The Commission’s regulation of

Kentucky has “reverse preempted” the FCC’s regulation of pole attachments since 1981. See,
e.g., Re Cable Television Pole Attachments, Admin. Case No. 251, Order (Ky. PSC Sept. 17,
1982).
7

-20-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 21 of 37 PageID #: 21

pole attachment service and the pole owners’ tariffs has preemptive effect. No municipal
government has authority to impose inconsistent obligations that interfere with Commission
jurisdiction over utility service. Peoples Gas Co. of Kentucky, Inc. v. City of Corbin, 625 S.W.2d
848 (Ky. 1981).
52.

These state requirements ensure uniform, fair, and reasonable access to rights-of-

way and existing infrastructure. They also establish reasonable, investment-backed expectations
for attaching entities related to the movement of their facilities. And their consistent application
allows wireline video service providers to compete on a level playing field in the market for
video services.
ii. Insight’s Services Depend On the Reliability of its Network
Infrastructure In Louisville.
53.

To construct and operate its communications system in the Louisville area, Insight

has invested millions of dollars to attach its wires and facilities to utility poles there. Insight
made this investment in reliance on its contractual agreements with pole owners, and its state and
federal law rights to reasonable and nondiscriminatory access to the rights-of-way. See K.R.S.
§ 278.260; 47 U.S.C. § 224.
54.

“Make-ready” is the term used where work is required on utility poles to

accommodate a new attachment.8 Until the adoption of Metro’s One-Touch Ordinance, parties
in Louisville accommodated new attachment requests in an orderly manner according to the
terms of their pole attachment agreements with LG&E and other pole-owners. No parties in
Louisville had the right to touch, take temporary possession of, or move property belonging to

“Make-ready” work involves rearranging the utility’s and other attachers’ existing facilities on
the pole and, in some cases, installing a new, taller or stronger pole and transferring existing
facilities to the new pole. The entity requesting the new attachment usually must pay for the
work necessary to accommodate its requested attachment.
8

-21-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 22 of 37 PageID #: 22

other communications providers without consent or at the very least ample advance notice and an
opportunity for the existing attaching parties to move their own facilities. When Insight made
attachments to utility poles in Louisville, it understood and expected that it had the responsibility
and the right to alter or modify its own facilities, the same as other attaching entities. Insight’s
agreements, for example, required that it pay for the costs incurred by pre-existing attachers
when they were required to move their facilities to accommodate Insight’s attachments.
55.

Insight’s distribution facilities, including its fiber optic cable, are subject to severe

damage when mishandled, and that damage is not always immediately apparent, either externally
or as measured by the electronic pathways that can be affected over time.
56.

Insight depends on its wires and facilities to provide video and other

communications services to its customers in Louisville, including links to critical 911 emergency
service. Interference, kinks, dings, or other damage to Insight’s facilities by a competitor or
another third party would affect the reliability of the delivery of its services to its customers, and
its relationships with its customers.
57.

To ensure the reliability of its network, Insight invests substantial resources

vetting and approving contractors who are responsible for performing installation, repairs, and
maintenance on its attachments. Insight’s contractors understand Insight’s communications
network, they have contractual privity with Insight, and they are able (and obligated) to follow
procedures and take the steps necessary to minimize the possibility that their work on Insight’s
facilities will interfere with Insight’s ability to provide services to its customers.
58.

Recognizing the importance of Insight’s control over its wires and facilities,

Insight’s Franchise Agreement with Louisville requires that Louisville Metro provide advance

-22-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 23 of 37 PageID #: 23

notice if Insight will be required to alter or relocate its facilities in the rights-of-way. See Ex. 2,
Franchise Agreement § 30.
iii. Louisville Metro’s “One-Touch” Regulations Exceed Its Authority
and Threaten to Disrupt Insight’s Services.
59.

On February 11, 2016, Metro adopted the One-Touch Ordinance, amending

§ 116.72 of the Metro Code governing communications service providers’ access to and use of
utility poles in the public rights-of-way. On information and belief, the One-Touch Ordinance
was proposed to give Google special rights in the construction of its communications network in
Louisville vis-à-vis competitors who have already constructed their communications networks.9
The Ordinance was adopted by the Metro Council over Insight’s objection.
60.

The One-Touch Ordinance purports to allow a communications service provider

seeking to make a new pole attachment to “relocate or alter attachments or facilities of any PreExisting Third Party User as may be necessary to accommodate Attacher’s Attachment using
Pole Owner approved contractors.” Ex. 7, Ordinance No. 021, Series 2016 § 2(D)(2) (adding
Metro Code § 116.72(D)(2)).
61.

The entity seeking a new attachment is not required to provide advance notice

prior to moving or altering a pre-existing third party user’s facilities unless the new attacher
understands that the work it plans to undertake will “cause[] or would reasonably be expected to
cause a customer outage.” Id. It is unclear how a new attacher could reliably make this
determination without consulting the third party to understand the likely effect of its work on the

Although the Ordinance would ostensibly apply to any “attacher,” including Insight, it was
conceived and adopted to attract Google to Louisville and to assist Google’s network
construction. In practice, Google will be able to take advantage of the One-Touch procedures to
tamper with tens of thousands of Insight’s attachments, while Insight will use it sparingly, if at
all, given that its network is already constructed.
9

-23-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 24 of 37 PageID #: 24

third party’s network. If the new attacher is wrong, moreover, the resulting customer outages
would cause severe damage to the third-party’s reputation and customer goodwill, for which the
third party is not provided recourse against the new attacher. The One-Touch Ordinance thus
shifts all of the risk of a wrong decision by the new attacher to third parties with existing
facilities. And it creates incentives for a new attacher to make close calls against providing
advance notice, putting the third-party’s network and customer relationships at risk, particularly
where the new attacher intends to compete against the third party.
62.

Where it has not provided advance notice, the new attacher must give notice that

it has relocated or altered a pre-existing third party user’s attachments within 30 days after
performing that work. The pre-existing third party attacher is then given only 14 days to inspect
the relocation or alteration of its facilities by the provider and make any claim of damage or
other complaint. Id.
63.

The new attacher is not required to use contractors that have been vetted and

approved by the pre-existing third party attachers.
64.

While new attachers must indemnify the pole owners for any damages caused,

they are not required to indemnify pre-existing third party attachers for any damages that result
from the new attacher’s interference with, relocation of, and alteration to the third party’s
facilities. Id.
65.

The One-Touch Ordinance invades the province of the Commission to regulate

pole attachments, including the tariffs of the pole owners that have been approved by the
Commission through established procedures. The Commission, not Louisville Metro, has
exclusive authority to regulate the use of utility facilities by wireline providers. See K.R.S.
§ 278.040(2). And the Commission’s regulation of pole attachments—including practices

-24-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 25 of 37 PageID #: 25

related to the safe and reasonable use of utility poles by third-party wireline providers—leaves
no room for Louisville’s One-Touch Ordinance.
66.

The One-Touch Ordinance also violates Insight’s right to maintain its exclusive

control over its property and not to give up that right in the absence of the payment of just
compensation. The One-Touch Ordinance purports to give new attachers who compete directly
with Insight, like Google, a government-sanctioned license physically to invade, take possession
of, move, and interfere with Insight’s property. The Ordinance gives Insight no opportunity to
object to its competitor’s invasion of or tampering with its facilities, to approve the contractors
who are allowed to take possession of its property, or to perform the work itself.
67.

And the One-Touch Ordinance effectively insulates Google from responsibility

for negligent work on or damage to Insight’s network and facilities. The Ordinance prescribes
an unworkable inspection period that affords insufficient time for Insight to inspect Google’s
work. Indeed, the Ordinance gives Google more than twice as much time to notify Insight of
work Google has already performed (30 days), than it gives Insight to inspect that work (14
days). This means Google could batch 30 days’ worth of work into a single notice—potentially
implicating work on hundreds or thousands of Insight’s attachments located all across town—
and making it practically impossible for Insight to inspect and document any problems. Even if
Insight could inspect all of that work in a mere 14 days, it would require Insight to allocate
substantial resources away from its own projects to make sure that Google’s work has not
damaged its network, giving Google a competitive advantage. And, even if Insight were to
inspect the work and find safety or other problems that need to be addressed, the One-Touch
Ordinance does not require Google to promptly cure the problem or provide an enforcement
mechanism to assure that it will.

-25-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 26 of 37 PageID #: 26

68.

Damage to Insight’s network that is not discovered or timely corrected, moreover,

could result in service outages affecting Insight’s customers. Insight’s customers would
inaccurately attribute these service outages to Insight—not Google—harming Insight’s customer
relationships and goodwill. And under its Franchise Agreement and the Metro Code, Insight
would be required to compensate its customers for outages caused by Google. See Ex. 1, Metro
Code § 116.29(E); Ex. 2, Franchise Agreement § 16. They also would create a skewed
perception in the marketplace of Insight’s service quality compared to that of other providers. In
addition, these outages threaten public safety as Insight is responsible for providing service to
critical infrastructure in Louisville Metro and customers’ access to 911 and other emergency
services.
69.

Indeed, the One-Touch Ordinance effectively shifts responsibility for negligent

work from Google, the entity performing the work, to Insight. The One-Touch Ordinance does
not require Google to indemnify Insight (only pole-owners). And there is no privity of contract
between Insight and Google, or between Insight and the contractors Google hires to work on
Insight’s facilities. As a result, Insight cannot contractually allocate risk and responsibility
between it, Google, and Google’s contractors. If Google’s contractors created a dangerous
condition that resulted in injury—for example, by hanging Insight’s existing wires too low across
a street, causing a traffic accident—Google would have no contractual obligation to defend or
offset the costs incurred by Insight in defending and/or resolving a claim arising from the
condition Google created. This would be the case even if Insight inspected the facility within 14
days and notified Google of the danger, and Google failed to remedy it.
70.

The One-Touch Ordinance thus compounds and expands on the disparate

regulatory regime established under Metro’s franchises and Metro Code.

-26-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 27 of 37 PageID #: 27

COUNT I
Violation of First and Fourteenth Amendments to U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983) and
Section 8 of the Kentucky Constitution
71.

Insight incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-70 as

if fully restated herein.
72.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the

states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that “Congress shall make no law . . .
abridging the freedom of speech or of the press . . . .” U.S. Const. Amend. I.
73.

Section 8 of the Kentucky Constitution provides that “[e]very person may freely

and fully speak, write and print on any subject . . . .”
74.

Insight “engages in and transmit[s] speech,” and is “entitled to the protection of

the speech and press provisions of the First Amendment.” Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512
U.S. 622, 636 (1994) (citing Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439, 444 (1991)). Insight is entitled
to engage in speech activity free from discriminatory and unwarranted interference by any
government entity.
75.

Louisville Metro is a state actor.

76.

Louisville Metro has allowed AT&T to operate in the Metro area without

accepting any of the burdens or regulatory treatment imposed on Insight.
77.

Louisville Metro granted Google a Uniform Franchise on terms materially more

favorable and less burdensome and regulatory than the Franchise Agreement it required Insight
to accept.
78.

Louisville Metro allows Google to operate under the minimal regulations found

under Metro Code §§ 116.70-116.77, while it requires Insight to operate under the extensive and
burdensome regulations found under Metro Code §§ 116.01-116.50.

-27-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 28 of 37 PageID #: 28

79.

Louisville Metro acted under color of law when it allowed Google and AT&T to

operate under favorable terms and less burdensome regulatory treatment, while imposing more
burdensome terms and regulatory treatment on Insight and then refusing to offer similar
favorable terms and regulatory treatment to Insight.
80.

Louisville Metro’s favorable treatment of Google and AT&T and its more

burdensome treatment of Insight (as compared to Google and AT&T) does not serve a
compelling government interest. Nor does it advance an important government interest unrelated
to the suppression of free speech.
81.

Louisville Metro’s more burdensome treatment of Insight is not narrowly tailored.

And, even if Metro had an important government interest, its discriminatory treatment of Insight
burdens substantially more speech than necessary to advance that interest.
82.

Louisville Metro’s favorable treatment of Google and AT&T and more

burdensome treatment of Insight (as compared to Google and AT&T) is state action that favors
one group of speakers (Google and AT&T) over another (Insight).
83.

Louisville Metro’s more burdensome treatment of Insight impairs Insight’s ability

to speak relative to Google’s and AT&T’s ability to speak.
84.

Louisville Metro’s actions infringe upon Insight’s freedom of speech.

85.

Insight has been and will continue to be harmed by Louisville Metro’s violation

of Insight’s freedom of speech.
86.

Insight is entitled to declaratory relief and other appropriate relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 to remedy Louisville Metro’s constitutional violations.

-28-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 29 of 37 PageID #: 29

COUNT II
Violation of Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983) and
Section 2 of the Kentucky Constitution
87.

Insight incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-86 as

if fully restated herein.
88.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides “[n]o state

shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States . . . nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.”
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1.
89.

Section 2 of the Kentucky Constitution provides that the state shall not exercise

“[a]bsolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen.”
90.

Insight has a vested property interest in its network in Louisville, including its

wires, equipment, and other facilities placed in the rights-of-way.
91.

Insight, AT&T and Google will provide video services in Louisville in

competition with one another.
92.

Insight, AT&T and Google all will use similar facilities placed in or along public

rights-of-way in Louisville, including cables and fiber-optic wires, to transmit video
programming from their facilities to their customers.
93.

Insight, AT&T and Google all will transmit prescheduled video programming,

including local broadcast stations, national non-broadcast programming services, and premium
entertainment channels, at the same time and on the same schedule as the programming is being
delivered from the programming provider. Each of these video providers also will transmit ondemand and pay-per-view programming.

-29-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 30 of 37 PageID #: 30

94.

Video customers in Louisville will access the programming provided by Insight,

AT&T or Google in the same way, by interacting with equipment to select and change channels
of video programming.
95.

The video programming services offered by Insight, AT&T and Google will be

viewed by their customers in Louisville as functionally equivalent.
96.

AT&T, Google and Insight own and operate businesses that are similar in all

respects in how they use the rights-of-way in Louisville.
97.

Louisville Metro granted Google a Uniform Franchise on terms more favorable

and less regulatory than the Franchise Agreement it imposed on Insight and which it continues to
enforce.
98.

On information and belief, Louisville Metro allows AT&T to operate in

Louisville without regulating it either as a Cable Communications System under Sections
116.01-116.50 of the Metro Code or as a Communications Service Provider under Sections
116.70-116-77 of the Code.
99.

Louisville Metro allows Google to operate under the minimal regulations found

under Metro Code §§ 116.70-116.77, while it requires Insight to operate under the extensive and
burdensome regulations found under Metro Code §§ 116.01-116.50.
100.

Louisville Metro’s disparate treatment affords AT&T and Google numerous

rights and privileges it denies Insight and imposes fewer obligations on AT&T and Google
relative to Insight.
101.

There is no justifiable basis for Louisville Metro’s preferential treatment of

AT&T and Google over Insight.

-30-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 31 of 37 PageID #: 31

102.

Louisville Metro’s preferential treatment of AT&T and Google denies Insight

equal protection of the laws.
103.

Louisville Metro acted under color of law when it denied Insight equal protection

of the laws.
104.

Insight has been and will continue to be harmed by Louisville Metro’s violation

of Insight’s right to equal protection of the laws.
105.

Insight is entitled to declaratory relief and other appropriate relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 to remedy Louisville Metro’s constitutional violation.
COUNT III
Preemption by K.R.S. § 278.010 et seq.
106.

Insight incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-105 as

if fully restated herein.
107.

Kentucky law vests the Commission with exclusive authority over the regulation

of rates and service of regulated utilities, see K.R.S. §§ 278.040(2) & 278.260.
108.

Pole attachments made by operators of cable television systems are facilities of

the utilities, and the Commission regulates the rates, terms, and conditions as well as safety and
engineering issues applicable to pole attachments. See, e.g., In re CATV Pole Attachment Tariff
of Gen. Tel. Co. of Ky., Admin. Case 251-8, Order ¶¶ 9(e)-(h) (Ky. PSC May 31, 1983).
109.

State law does not permit local authorities to establish a regulatory scheme for

pole attachments that is different than the regulations that apply to the pole attachments made by
all attachers, as Louisville Metro has attempted to do.

-31-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 32 of 37 PageID #: 32

110.

The Commission also has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate unreasonable,

unsafe, and unjustly discriminatory practices that involve and relate to pole attachments. K.R.S.
§ 278.260.
111.

State law does not permit local authorities to establish a regulatory scheme for

pole attachments that is unreasonable, unsafe, and discriminatory, as Louisville Metro has
attempted to do.
112.

The One-Touch Ordinance allows Google to interfere with and damage Insight’s

communications network with impunity, and creates a number of engineering and public safety
hazards.
113.

The One-Touch Ordinance violates and exceeds Louisville Metro’s authority

under state law by creating a new regulatory scheme not authorized by statute.
114.

Insight has been harmed, and will continue to be harmed, by Louisville Metro’s

attempt to create and enforce an unreasonable, unsafe, and discriminatory regulatory regime
through its One-Touch Ordinance.
115.

Accordingly, Insight seeks a declaration that Louisville Metro’s One-Touch

Ordinance violates and is preempted by the K.R.S. § 278.010 et seq. and the Commission’s
regulatory authority.
COUNT IV
Violation of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983) and
Section 13 of the Kentucky Constitution
116.

Insight incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-115 as

if fully restated herein.
117.

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, made applicable to the

states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides: “No person shall be . . . deprived of life,

-32-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 33 of 37 PageID #: 33

liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.”
118.

Section 13 of the Kentucky Constitution provides: “[N]or shall any man’s

property be taken or applied to public use without the consent of his representatives, and without
just compensation being previously made to him.”
119.

Insight has a vested property interest in its physical network in Louisville,

including its wires, equipment, and other facilities attached to utility poles in Louisville.
120.

The One-Touch Ordinance purports to allow Insight’s competitor, Google, to

repeatedly handle, move, interfere with, and potentially damage Insight’s wires, equipment, and
other facilities attached to utility poles in the right-of-way, which threatens to destroy Insight’s
investment in and ability to use its facilities to provide service to its customers.
121.

The One-Touch Ordinance constitutes an unlawful taking of Insight’s property,

by the state action of a municipal ordinance that allows a competitor repeatedly to trespass upon,
take possession of, move and potentially damage its facilities, for a private use, without just
compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
122.

Louisville Metro acted under color of law when it adopted the One-Touch

Ordinance and authorized an unlawful taking of Insight’s property.
123.

Insight has been and will continue to be harmed by the One-Touch Ordinance and

Louisville Metro’s violation of Insight’s constitutionally protected property rights.
124.

Insight is entitled to declaratory relief and other appropriate relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 to remedy Louisville’s constitutional violation.

-33-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 34 of 37 PageID #: 34

COUNT V
Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988
125.

Insight incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-124 as

if fully restated herein.
126.

Insight has rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the United States

Constitution and laws of the United States, including under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth
Amendments.
127.

Louisville Metro’s discriminatory regulatory treatment of Insight, AT&T and

Google confers preferential status on AT&T’s and Google’s ability to engage in and transmit
speech relative to Insight’s ability to engage in and transmit speech, in violation of the First
Amendment.
128.

Louisville Metro’s discriminatory regulatory treatment of Insight, AT&T and

Google, who are similarly situated competitors providing video services, denies Insight equal
protection under the laws by conferring additional rights and privileges on AT&T and Google,
and by imposing minimal or no regulatory burdens on AT&T and Google, which it denies
Insight, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
129.

Louisville Metro’s One-Touch Ordinance authorizes an unlawful taking of

Insight’s property, by a competitor, for a private use, without just compensation in violation of
the Fifth Amendment.
130.

Louisville Metro acted under color of law when it denied Insight’s rights,

privileges and immunities granted by the United States Constitution.

-34-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 35 of 37 PageID #: 35

131.

As a direct and proximate result of Louisville Metro’s violations of the United

States Constitution, Insight has suffered harm that cannot be remediated at law, including
deprivation of rights.
132.

Accordingly, Insight is entitled to declaratory relief to remedy Louisville Metro’s

constitutional violations, and its attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT VI
Declaratory Judgment Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 & 2202
133.

Insight incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-132 as

if fully restated herein.
134.

An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Insight and Louisville

Metro with respect to Louisville Metro’s violation of Insight’s federal and state constitutional
rights and compliance with state law.
135.

Insight disputes the lawfulness of Louisville Metro’s preferential treatment of

AT&T and Google by affording AT&T and Google greater rights and privileges than Insight and
subjecting AT&T and Google to less onerous obligations and regulatory burdens. Insight also
disputes the lawfulness of AT&T’s One-Touch Ordinance, which authorizes an unlawful taking
of Insight’s property by Insight’s competitor, Google, for a private use, without just
compensation.
136.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, a judicial determination of the

respective rights of the parties is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, in addition
to such further necessary or proper relief the Court deems appropriate.

-35-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 36 of 37 PageID #: 36

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
With respect to its Complaint, and based on the foregoing, Insight prays for the following
relief:
1.

Declare that Louisville Metro violated the First Amendment of the United States

Constitution and Section 8 of the Kentucky Constitution because its discriminatory treatment of
Insight relative to AT&T and Google impairs Insight’s ability to engage in and transmit speech.
2.

Declare that Louisville Metro violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United

States Constitution and Section 2 of the Kentucky Constitution by denying Insight equal
treatment under the law relative to its direct competitors, Google and AT&T.
3.

Declare that Louisville Metro must treat similarly situated competitors in the

market of wireline video services with parity, and that it cannot afford preferential regulatory
treatment (whether through its franchises or Metro Code) to AT&T and Google that it denies
Insight.
4.

Order Louisville Metro to afford Insight the same regulatory treatment that it

affords to Google.
5.

Declare that the One-Touch Ordinance violates and is preempted by Kentucky

state law delegating to the Commission the exclusive authority to regulate pole attachments and
ensure the safe, reliable, and nondiscriminatory use of poles for the attachment of
communications facilities.
6.

Declare that the One-Touch Ordinance violates the Fifth Amendment of the

United States Constitution and Section 13 of the Kentucky Constitution by purporting to
authorize an unconstitutional taking of Insight’s property.

-36-

 Case 3:16-cv-00625-CRS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 37 of 37 PageID #: 37

7.

Award Insight the costs of this action to the fullest extent permitted by law,

including but not limited to costs and attorneys’ fees recoverable under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and
1988.
8.

Award Insight any and all additional relief as the Court deems just and proper.

This 30th day of September, 2016.

/s/ Michael W. Oyler
Michael W. Oyler (moyler@rwsvlaw.com)
Trevor L. Earl (tearl@rwsvlaw.com)
Reed Weitkamp Schell & Vice PLLC
500 West Jefferson Street, Suite 2400
Louisville, KY 40202
Telephone: (502) 589-1000
Facsimile: (502) 562-2200
Gardner F. Gillespie*
Paul A. Werner*
J. Aaron George*
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 747-1900
Facsimile: (202) 747-1901
*pro hac vice applications to be filed
Counsel for Plaintiff Insight Kentucky
Partners II, L.P.

-37-