Easements (was Alamogordo Telephone Office)

Oct 19, 2005 0 Replies
Easements (was Alamogordo Telephone Office) open original image


As I understand real estate law, such easements for utilities are


> part of the general law and not necessarily shown on someone's
> deed. There is nothing to stop the phone, power, or water company
> from digging up your front lawn to run or maintain lines, whether > you like it or not.

True, provided that the easement document has been recorded. Such easements may be recorded as part of a plat map, a survey map, or a separate document.


Individual property deeds often include some catchall phrase like "subject of easements of record"; however, recorded easements still apply even if individual deeds don't mention them.


The law is fuzzier when it comes to newer services such as cable > and fiber optic.

Franchised cable TV operators have a federal right to utilize easements recorded "for compatible uses." 47 U.S.C. 541(a)(2). The term "compatible uses" is usually construed to mean easements dedicated for electric power and/or telephone facilities.

formatting link
In most states, telcos offering cable TV-like video services must obtain local CATV franchises; thus, they have the same federal right to use easements. In Texas, SBC now has a statewide CATV franchise, which presumably grants it the same right; however, there will undoubtedly be much litigation before it's settled.


They [cable TV operators] don't have quite the same "common
> carrier" status as the old line utility service.

Cable TV operators are indeed not common carriers, but that doesn't mean they don't have a legal right to use recorded easements. See my previous post on this subject at

formatting link
.


Even established carriers have to handle things differently for new
> services. For example, when Verizon strung fiber through our area
> for its FIOS service, they needed municipal permission ...

i.e., a cable TV franchise.


... and they did not provide it universally.

If Verizon obtained a franchise that does not impose the same requirements on Verizon that it imposes on the incumbent cable TV franchisee, you can expect some litigation.


SBC's statewide franchise in Texas contains a similar exemption, and Time Warner has already field suit.


Neal McLain


Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required